Search
Whoever has questions concerning biblical and spiritual problems can write to the editor; we shall do our best to answer. Please forgive us for not answering any unprofitable questions.
Question: I have read the question and answer on women preaching, published in March, the fifth issue of your magazine, concerning whether it is proper for women to preach in the meetings. Mr. Chang from Chefoo answered that the Bible considers that it is improper. I wonder if Mr. Chang can tell me in detail the condition of the church age during the apostle Paul's time. Also, I hope you will spend some time to point out to me if it is proper for women to preach in the meeting. I have heard of many brothers and sisters who love the Lord and who have considered this question important and have thought negatively about what you have published in the paper. Some have said that your paper should not be read. I have always loved your paper, and I hope no one is discouraged because of this. Therefore, please forgive me for asking you boldly and directly this question. (Lee, Chefoo)
Answer: All the answers in our paper are written by the editor. The name and places in parenthesis following the questions refer only to the name of the one who asked the question and where he is from. Therefore, the answer in the March issue was not given by Mr. Chang, but by the editor. We appreciate your writing this letter to us, and we truly hope the Lord will bless you for your love toward our paper.
We assume that you have already read the answers to the several questions concerning women in the eleventh issue. For this reason, it is not necessary for us to speak more. However, we would like to take this opportunity to show our readers our attitude toward all biblical questions. Even though we have not received any other letter questioning or criticizing our paper, we think it is a beneficial thing to have. We deeply feel that the interpretation of the Bible is a great responsibility, and for that reason we cannot help but hold a cautious attitude. The matter of women preaching in the meetings is one that is most controversial among many of God's best children. We do not want to present an ambiguous explanation, because we believe there is only one truth. What we believe is the Bible. Besides the Bible, we do not trust in any human traditions, opinions, or explanations. Even if others accuse us of being heretical, evil, or unscriptural, we must still not compromise. We only know what the Bible actually says. It is a pity that many expository writings of the Bible in these days are but changing the Bible! Many explanations result in some part of the Word being lost. We will never say that we can never be wrong! Even if all others approve us, we will be the last to approve ourselves. It may be that our mistakes are more numerous than those of others! But, dear brothers, we are willing to follow the Bible literally. If we are wrong, we are indeed willing to be corrected. We would ask those who know where we are wrong to please point out to us our mistakes from the teachings of the Bible, and not from the opinions of men. We know that we are not trustworthy. This is why we trust in the Bible. Since we know that we are not trustworthy, we would also ask your forgiveness in our unwillingness to trust in any famous Bible expositor. We admit that the exposition in The Christian is quite different from the traditional interpretations of men. We are definitely not for our readers to follow us blindly. If they do this, it would be better for The Christian to cease its publication. We can only proclaim the truth that we know. Our readers should never think that what The Christian has said can never contain any mistake. We have to tell the brothers frankly that we do not believe we are like the biblical prophets who wrote the Scriptures by divine inspiration. We can make mistakes. Even though those who love The Christian are increasing day by day, perhaps no one is more aware of the shortcomings of the magazine than the editor himself. The Lord also knows our shortcomings. We hope that every reader will check our messages against the teachings of the Bible. If they are the same, then please pay the price to follow these teachings. If they are not the same, we advise you to refuse them totally. Never follow blindly just because you trust The Christian and its editor. Our unique goal is to lead people closer to God's living word and His written Word. If a man can be drawn closer to Christ and to the Bible, our work has received its great reward. I wish that The Christian would simply be something like a pontoon bridge, something that is used and then forgotten, with itself receiving no recognition at all.
Concerning the question of women, we would like to say a few words. The Bible does not say that women should not preach (1 Cor. 11:5). What the Bible forbids is for women to preach in meetings that have brothers in them (1 Cor. 14:34). Some believers have tried to explain this word by making reference to the situation in the church at Corinth during those days. But (1) the book of 1 Corinthians was not written to the church in Corinth only. Please read 1:2, "To the church of God which is in Corinth...with all those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place." This epistle is shared by all the churches in "every place." (2) Even if this letter is written to the church in Corinth, does it therefore mean that it has nothing to do with those in this age? If this is so, then which book in the Bible is written to us? (3) Even if it is right to say that we should consider the condition at that time, we should still ask: What was the situation at that time? Is it not true that women preached much in the meetings? If this were not the case, there was surely no need for the teaching in this verse. But, wherever there was the case of women preaching in the meeting, this verse forbids it. Therefore, by considering the situation at the time, we can see that women should not preach, for there are only two possibilities: that the situation then corresponds to what is now, or that the situation then does not correspond to what is now. If it does not correspond to what is now, it means that there were no women preaching, and nothing more need to be said. If it does correspond to what is now, it means that there were women preaching, and it means that the apostle's teaching for Corinth was needful for that place. And if it was needful for that place, it means that the women there should not preach. (4) If this word was spoken only because the custom in Corinth was improper, why then did the apostle say such a word also to Timothy? (5) First Corinthians 14 has answered all the questions: "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should be silent in the churches" (vv. 33-34). What is clearer than this? Not only in Corinth, and not only in any locality in China, but "in all the churches of the saints" throughout the world there should not be women preaching. If this was so in the age of the apostle, how much more should it be so today? (Please read the Spiritual Light Magazine, Vol. 37; Miss Ruth Lee's talk on "Studying the Bible.")
We can consider this question from another angle. In regard to those women who want to preach in the meetings with brothers present, are they doing this based on the teachings in the Bible? If they are, may I ask where is such a verse in the Bible? If there is no such verse, is it not very dangerous to do such a thing? I will ask yet another question: If such an act is not based on the Bible, are these ones looking for scriptural justification only after they have practiced preaching in meetings with brothers present, or after they have made the decision to do so? If this is the case, naturally they would end up "changing" the Bible. Dear brothers, to me, the teachings of the Bible are not hard to understand. The difficulty lies in the fact that men lack the heart spoken of in John 7:17. Those believers who love the Lord should not do anything without the command of the Bible. Moreover, they should not do something first, and then come back to look for Scriptures that would justify them while covering up the Scriptures that would condemn them. We are not saying that women have no gifts, nor are we saying that their work is not effective. We are merely asking what the Bible teaches. I will not talk of others; I will only speak about myself. I came to the Lord through one sister who prayed for me for many years, and I was brought to the Lord through another older sister. The two persons who helped me the most in my spiritual life are Western sisters. But, dear brothers, this is not a matter of personal feelings, but of the teaching of God's Word. Should women then no longer preach in meetings with brothers present? We dare not answer. All those who are personally involved with this problem should search the Bible themselves.
Dear sisters, I do not want to offend you because of this question. But I can only say what I know (John 3:11). If you are clear that the Lord wants you to do such (that is, to preach in the meetings), then who am I? How would I dare to oppose your words? I wish you all the best of success, and I hope that the Lord will anoint you with the anointing of the Spirit and will bless you. But my warning is that you would not do anything without realizing what you are doing. I am willing to sit on the last row of a meeting and listen to a sister preaching; I am willing to receive her teaching and am willing to pray for her that her work may be effective. I myself only know the outline and the principle of the Bible. As far as how each individual ought to conduct himself, I hope the Lord Himself will grant each one the leading.
Brothers, if you think that the Bible forbids women to preach in the meeting, and you come across some women preaching, please be careful and do not oppose it right away. With each individual, we should only and always hold the attitude of, "I do not know anything about others." We should follow closely the teaching of Romans 14:4: "Who are you who judge another's household servant? To his own master he stands,...for the Lord is able to make him stand." We should teach others the principle in the Bible, but we should never judge others (if we already know the teaching) concerning their individual practices. I am willing to let sisters preach in the meetings, but I cannot say that I believe women should preach in the meetings.
Lastly, we often hear people say that the Lord has exceptions. Due to the failure of the men, God raised up Deborah in the nation of Israel. Therefore, in today's church we can also have exceptions such as this. For now, we will not say whether it was right or wrong for Deborah to be a judge. For the sake of simplicity, let us say that it was right. But how many Deborahs are there? It is true that the failure of the brothers today is the saddest story. Perhaps God needs to raise up a new Deborah to do the work. But then, women of Israel, please do not say that every one of you is a Deborah. God may have the authority to do something, but do not take His special way as a teaching. You should all ask yourselves: Has God exercised such an authority? Has He granted me such authority? Does God want me to preach specifically in a meeting with brothers present? If He does, may God bless your work.
Question: I read the question and answer column of the eleventh issue of your paper and saw the question from Mr. Chien from Changchou concerning the resurrection of the saints of old. Will you explain to me whether there is a contradiction between the word in Matthew 27:52 and that in 1 Corinthians 15:20? In your reply, you said that the Lord Jesus was not the first one to resurrect, and that Elisha and the Lord both had called someone back to life. Although you explained at the end that "the Lord is the only one who resurrected in such a way," this kind of answer is bound to create misunderstanding. I am afraid people would think the resurrection of the Lord and the resurrection of those whom the Lord and Elisha raised up are all the same. In my opinion, the people raised up by Elijah, by Elisha, and by the Lord Jesus were not a resurrection of the spiritual body such as will be in the future; they were merely a return of the soul to the body after the person had died. These people lived a few more years on earth, but in the end they still died like other people. The resurrection of the Lord Jesus is indeed the first one, in that He was the first one who had resurrected with a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:20). The saints mentioned in Matthew 27:52, in my opinion, also resurrected with a spiritual body. This can be proved from verse 53 which says that these ones came out only after the Lord's rising from the tomb, which means that no one was able to resurrect before the Lord Jesus did. The words "appeared to many" prove that their resurrection was not of the physical body, but of the spiritual body. From this, we can see the power of death. Without the Lord's crushing of this power, even when others were able to rise up from their graves, they were still not able to come out of the tombs. Perhaps some think that such an interpretation of Matthew 27:52 would contradict the word that says the saints will resurrect only at the last trumpet. I think this is a special case in the Bible. God's purpose for doing this is to testify to the resurrection of the Lord. Normally, believers will not resurrect until the sounding of the last trumpet. Is this explanation correct? I humbly await your judgment. (Lee, Anhwei)
Answer: Even the most learned servants of God cannot agree on whether the people who were raised from the dead by the Old Testament prophets and by the Lord Jesus on earth, as well as the saints in Matthew 27, were all resurrected with a spiritual body. Hence, it is difficult to say anything definitely. Since this point does not have much to do with our spiritual life in our present experience, we can only let it go. If you think that the Lord Jesus was the first one to resurrect with a spiritual body, what you have said goes all the more to prove my word, "the Lord is the only one who resurrected in such a way"! Such an answer shows that the resurrection of the Lord Jesus was different from the resurrection of those whom Elisha and the Lord raised up. The phrase, "in such a way," suggests that it was special. Praise the Lord, because He is the first in all things.
Question: The Azazel mentioned in Leviticus 16:8 refers to whom? Someone said that it refers to Satan. I hope you can tell me; I would be very grateful. (Chang, Ningpo)
Answer: Some people, like Scofield, think that it refers to Christ, like the two birds in chapter fourteen. But I myself believe that Azazel is Satan. Some biblical scholars think that Azazel was the name of an idol. In verse 8, Azazel was put in opposition to Jehovah.
Question:What does Revelation 6:2 refer to? (Wu, Kiangsi)
Answer:God's children have very divergent opinions concerning this point. The three most common viewpoints are: (1) This is Christ. He is commencing to judge, just as is mentioned in Revelation 19:19. (2) This is Antichrist. This is based on the order of Matthew 24. The white horse, the red horse, and the black horse stand in contrast to Antichrist, war, and famine. (3) This is the gospel; the vision depicts the long-term victory of the gospel in this age. We cannot make an absolute judgment concerning the interpretation of these Scriptures. We can choose to believe what we have seen, but we must never presume that others are all wrong. Unless for special spiritual reasons, we should always maintain the attitude that what we know is very limited.
Question: Someone asked, "Is it God's commandment that we observe Sunday?" I cannot answer from the Bible. Please instruct me. (Yang, Anhwei)
Answer: Indeed, you cannot use the Bible to answer him. I am afraid that no honest Bible expositor can answer him either! I cannot find any commandment in the Bible that says we should "observe" Sunday! Please do not misunderstand by thinking that we should observe Saturday; there is no such thing either. I have not found any passage in the Bible that says that Christians should observe Saturday! What does this mean? The Sabbath day (that is, Saturday) belongs to the law. But we, the Gentiles, are not under the law. (1) Before we believed in the Lord, we were "Gentiles, who have no law" (Rom. 2:14). (2) After we believed in the Lord, the apostle said that "you are not under the law" (6:14). However, "whatever things the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law" (3:19). If those brothers who insist that we observe the Sabbath cannot prove to us that the Sabbath is not of the law, they cannot ask us to keep it. The more they say that the Sabbath is important for the reason that it is a crucial commandment of the law, the more it means that we should not keep it! But there are those who commit the same mistake as the zealous Sabbath-keepers; they are the Sunday-observers (actually the Lord's Day-observers). (1) They think that because the apostles met on this day, we should therefore "observe" this day. But, why did the apostles only gather on this day, whereas these ones would change it to mean they have to observe this day? (2) They think that after the Lord Jesus died, under the New Testament, the Sabbath is changed from Saturday to Sunday. But where does the Bible say this? (3) They think that the Lord's Day is the "Christian Sabbath." In many denominations the Ten Commandments are still held high, and the members are exhorted to keep the Sabbath faithfully. However, the Sabbath is clearly the seventh day, which is today's Saturday. How can they swap things around and make the first day of the week (that is, our Sunday) the Sabbath day? It is no wonder that when we make the truth clear to those who are zealous for Saturday, their denominations lose many members. We do not have to go into detail on this. All the arguments by these denominations of making Sunday the Sabbath Day have been totally refuted by the Seventh Day Adventists already. According to our study of the Bible, the Sabbath-keepers are wrong, and the Sunday-observers are also wrong. Both are wrong. The Sabbath-keepers lead Christians to a position that is fully under the law, while the Sunday-observers are leading Christians to a position that is a mixture of law and grace. Of the two, the latter is more dangerous. It is very clear to everyone that the Bible has not commanded the New Testament believers to keep the Sabbath. But where in the Bible are Christians asked to keep the Lord's Day? We have to say that there is not one verse in the Bible which says this. Before going on, let me first explain the meaning of the expression "observing Sunday." To observe Sunday is to stop working or doing any business on Sunday. On this day the shopkeepers should close their shops to observe the day. But may I ask those in the denominations, "Why do you observe Sunday this way? Why should believers not buy and sell on Sunday, and why should they not do what they do on the other weekdays?" These ones would unanimously answer, "Does not the fourth commandment tell us that we should rest on this day?" Brothers, consider what a confusion this is! If you ask these ones further which day does the fourth commandment refer to, they have to say that it refers to the Sabbath day. But which day is the Sabbath day? It is Saturday. Which day are they observing? They are observing Sunday. Please note that the regulation of the fourth commandment is with regard to Saturday. But what people are observing today is Sunday. What is the reason for basing one's observance of Sunday on a regulation that governs Saturday? Why change from Saturday to Sunday, while keeping the regulations governing Saturday? The Sunday observers cannot answer these questions. They realize that in the age of grace there is no more need to keep the Sabbath. But while they observe the Lord's Day, they are still being bound by the Sabbath regulations. What advantage is there to change the seventh day to the first day? This kind of behavior is mindless, meaningless, illogical, contrary to grace, contrary to the law, and unscriptural. What is the scriptural teaching concerning the keeping of days? The Bible has not commanded Christians to "observe" any day. No, absolutely none. According to the example and teaching of the Bible, on the Lord's Day (i.e., Sunday), Christians should (1) rejoice and be glad (Psa. 118:24), (2) meet and break bread (Acts 20:7), and (3) make offerings (1 Cor. 16:2). These are the things that Christians should do. This day is the "Lord's Day" (Rev. 1:10). Hence, we should act according to the Lord's will. As to what should not be done, the Bible does not have a single word concerning it. Many of the present day regulations are human traditions. If one should not buy and sell on the Lord's Day, he should not do the same on all the other days as well. It is because men do not understand that the gospel teaches men to do everything in their daily lives for God that there are such errors. The conclusion is that Christians should not observe the Sabbath, and they should not observe Sunday. However, on the Lord's Day (i.e., Sunday), they should rejoice and be glad, meet and break bread, and make offerings. This question has bewildered many and has caused loss to the poor believers who would otherwise work on the Lord's Day, but who refrain from working under the fear that they would offend the Lord. For this reason, I have said a little more on the subject. The consciences of many people are made weak through human traditions.
Question: I have read the tenth issue of The Christian, which said that believers who are saved are eternally saved. It divided believers into three classes: Those who are being rewarded, those who will not be rewarded, and those who will be punished. I really admire your explanations, which are all according to the Bible. According to the above explanation, what would you say about Judas Iscariot, about Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5, and about Simon the sorcerer in chapter eight? Please instruct me in detail. (Yang, Anhwei)
Answer: With regard to Judas Iscariot, it should not be hard after hearing the Lord's words for one to see his outcome. He was the "son of perdition" (John 17:12). As for Ananias and Sapphira, if they were among "the multitude of those who had believed" (Acts 4:32), even though they were delivered to Satan for the destruction of their flesh, yet this was for the purpose that their spirit would be saved in the day of the Lord (1 Cor. 5:5). Simon was a saved person. In Acts 8:13 it says, "And even Simon himself believed, and...he had been baptized"; Mark 16:16 says, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved." One thing is most important: We ourselves should believe in the Lord and be saved. For those who are still living on this earth and are not yet saved, we should do our best to preach the gospel to them, so that they would believe and be saved. As for the dead ones, whether or not they are saved is in God's hand; we should not worry about them.
Question: Every time I read 1 Corinthians 5:5, there are always doubts arising in my heart. Since the word says to "deliver such a one to Satan," how can he also be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus? Please tell me, in what way is one delivered unto Satan? (Chang, Ningpo)
Answer: Please forgive me for not answering your question until this issue! The one who was to be delivered to Satan and whom the apostle spoke about here was the believer who had committed adultery. He was a "brother" already (v. 11). Hence, he was saved and one who belonged to the Lord. Again, if we look at the words in verses 7 and 8, we know that this man already had Jesus Christ as the Passover Lamb, but he did not keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Because he trusted in the precious blood, he was saved. The problem was that he had not purged his sins. Once a person is saved, he is saved forever. The apostle had only delivered his body to Satan; his spirit and soul still belong to the Lord. The body of the believers should be under God's protection. Satan always loves to murder the believers, but God's hand is always restricting Satan. However, when God's hand is removed, Satan will immediately do his work (cf. the story of Job). Therefore, the delivering of this one to Satan was the removing of God's hand; God no longer restricted Satan from working on him. This man would suffer the destruction by Satan to his flesh. He would even die, as a warning for him. A sinner finds pleasure in his flesh. Hence, his flesh should suffer.
Question: I have read the testimony of Mrs. Y. R. in your magazine, but I still have some questions. Please instruct me in the love of the Lord. In Matthew 3:13 the baptism the Lord Jesus received from John was by water (it did not mention in whose name). In Matthew 28:19 the Lord Jesus commanded the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. In Acts 19 the Ephesians had received the baptism of John (by immersion); in verse 5, they were baptized again (by immersion?), but there Paul only baptized them in the name of the Lord (different from the command given by the Lord Jesus). Apparently, the apostles could baptize people in the name of the Lord Jesus alone. In Acts 9 Ananias of Damascus was a disciple. He baptized Paul in the name of the Lord only. If we read Acts carefully, we see that everyone was baptized only in the name of the Lord. What then is the baptism we now receive? Whose baptism is it? Is it John's baptism, or the Lord Jesus' baptism, or both? Do those who baptize people do so in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, or in the name of the Lord Jesus only? Or are both permissible? (Lee, Anhwei)
Answer: The baptism we now receive is not the baptism of John because although John was "the lamp that was burning and shining," people rejoiced only "for a while in his light" (John 5:35). Acts 19 is sufficient to prove this point. The Bible does not say whose baptism we are now receiving. Romans 6 merely states that we are baptized into the Lord's death. Matthew 28:19 says that we are baptized "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." We see that those who care much about rituals merely recite this phrase when they baptize people! Actually, this is not a ceremony, but the declaration of a fact. It is a pity that this line is used by the denominations as a litany of baptism, a line which one reads at the time of baptism. When we read the acts of the apostles in Acts (8:16; 10:48; 19:5), we find further proof of what we have said. In the Bible, there is not one record of men being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, every time Acts mentions the name, it is always the name of the Lord Jesus. However, this does not mean that the matter should be practiced ritualistically, in the way that men today are doing. The reason for this is that sometimes the Bible also mentions the name of "the Lord Jesus" (8:16; 19:5) and also the name of "Jesus Christ" (2:38; 10:48). Therefore, baptism is in the name of the Lord Jesus, and a person is baptized into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Question: I was baptized as an infant, but infant baptism is never mentioned anywhere in God's Word (the Bible). As I was growing up, my parents told me that I had already received baptism and had no need to be baptized again, and that the position I held was already that of a disciple of the Lord. If I pass another examination, I could be received into the communion. I believe that this is something man has added to the Bible, and I believe that this does not agree with the Bible. Mark 16:16 says, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved." This shows that baptism should come after believing. However, if one dies during childhood, he is saved already and no longer has any need for such an act, because at that age a child does not know what it is to believe and does not even know the difference between the left hand and the right. We can say that children have no sin. To be baptized is to wash away one's sins (Acts 22:16). If infants are baptized, what are they washing away? Is it true that those who have been baptized in this way should be baptized again? (Lee, Anhwei)
Answer: Acts 19 answers this for you. But, brother, your question contains a little error. You asked, "Is it true that those who have been baptized in this way should be baptized again?" The word "again" is not appropriate. Since you know that there is no such thing as infant baptism in the Bible, then infant baptism is not scriptural and does not count according to the Bible. Hence, "those who have been baptized in this way" have, in the eyes of God, never been baptized. If he does get baptized, that will be his first baptism, and not his being baptized again. Your question should be stated this way: Should one who has not been baptized be baptized? After you have put the question this way, you should be able to find out the answer by yourself from the Bible.
Question: The "True Jesus Church" was recently raised up in our country. What is its goal? I read about it in the Spiritual Paper and was quite amazed by it. Please tell me about it. (Wang, Fuding)
Answer: Based on what I know, the True Jesus Church is a church which emphasizes very much the baptism of the Holy Spirit; it is a branch of the modern Pentecostal movement. The errors within this movement are many and are far more numerous than those within the Seventh Day Adventists. I will briefly point out to you several of their errors: (1) their claim that the baptism of the Holy Spirit must be accompanied by the speaking in tongues, (2) their claim that baptism can heal sickness, (3) the hallelujah prayers, (4) the name of the church, (5) the organization of the church, (6) their confusion on the cardinal truth concerning salvation, and (7) the keeping of the Sabbath. The most pitiful thing is that many believers are not so clear concerning the work of the Holy Spirit. As a result, they are cheated thoroughly. Even if a believer does not know anything else, at least he should know the teaching of Ephesians 1:13-14. Every believer, as soon as he believes the gospel, is sealed with the Holy Spirit. According to these two verses, all those who have believed in the gospel have the Holy Spirit already. Moreover, this Spirit will never leave them, but will be with them until the day of redemption (4:30). Therefore, a believer has no need to receive the Spirit as something he does not yet possess. Instead, he needs to obey the Spirit which he already has received. Concerning things supernatural, they can be from God, but they can also be from Satan. Not only so, Satan is the one who pretends to be the angel of light. The miracles that Satan performs can have the best appearance and effect. Our space is limited, and we cannot say too much. Nevertheless, the test of 1 John 4:1-3 is absolutely necessary.
Question: I am working in the Independent Church, and I feel restricted. All the rituals there are mostly based on man's ideas. I desire to work by myself, freely, and not to participate in any denominations, but I do not know if this is permissible. (Wang, Fuding)
Answer: May the Lord Himself lead you personally. Please pray much before the Lord, that you may know His will, before you make any move. Naturally, all faithful children of God see many unscriptural things in the denominations. But I wish everyone would not just listen to the opinions of others, nor merely see things with their own eyes, but would truly receive God's revelation in the Spirit to see through the emptiness of man's tradition. Otherwise, "that which is born of the flesh is flesh." There are at least three present dangers to the children of God concerning the question of denominations: (1) They follow the traditions of men and would not change. (2) They oppose the traditions of men and adopt the attitude of the modernists. Such is the case with those who advocate indigenous churches. (3) They oppose the traditions of men and fall into heresies, such as the Seventh Day Adventists and the True Jesus Church. Strictly speaking, although all three cases are dangerous, the last two are more dangerous than the first. It is safer to keep the traditions in the denominations (the first way). The real way, however, is to read God's Word in God's presence and resolve to obey. The testimony of the Bible is what we should follow. (This answers both Mr. Chen and Mr. Fan.)
Question: Sometimes in my spirit, because of God's mercy, I can see His hand working in every way. During these times, even though I have hardships and opposition, my heart is full of praise, thanksgiving, and joy. It is as if I desire no one besides the Lord. Sometimes I lose this kind of vision. Even though I still love the Lord and desire the Lord, my heart feels lost, as if I am in a thick fog. This kind of up-and-down living comes and goes. I hope that you will teach your foolish brother in the Lord how to keep the sight that I have received. (Lee, Anhwei)
Answer: Dear brother, I am really happy because you are now on the way to spiritual life. May God bless you. However, you should remain humble. What we need is death. If we are dead, all is well. Brother, I cannot teach you "how to keep this sight you have received." What I can say to you is that you should be willing to lose "this sight you have received." Please remember, "For we walk by faith, not by appearance" (2 Cor. 5:7). "The righteous shall have life and live by faith" (Rom. 1:17), and not by feeling or sight. Faith is to disregard feeling and sight. We need to learn to believe in the Lord even when we are in the darkness, that is, when we do not have any feeling or sight. We should live by this faith. This means that our spiritual life is one which believes in God, and not one which senses God or sees God. The spiritual life of a believer is far deeper than sight or senses. Please do not think that because you have those kinds of praises, thanksgivings, and feelings and sights of joy that you are at the height of your spiritual life. No, these are not spiritual living; these are merely what you see and feel. You may ask, "Is not a man's life dependent on what he feels and sees?" You have to realize that these are merely the feelings in your soul; they are not your true spiritual life. The most important thing that we should know is that true spirituality depends on man's will, rather than on his emotions. If your will consistently, constantly, and continuously (1) wills, (2) determines, and (3) chooses that which is of God and even God Himself, you are already living a spiritual life. Your emotions are unreliable. Indeed, they are like the waves. But you can abide peacefully by your will. If you seek after and grasp the sight you have received, you will be up and down all the time. What God wants to give is not a happy feeling every day. His purpose is for you to live by your will and your spirit. "I love the Lord, not because of what I feel, but because I want to love Him." Just as we would read the Bible, pray, preach, and serve the Lord when we are joyful, in the same way we should read the Bible, pray, preach, and serve Him when we do not feel anything and our heart is as cold as ice. Please understand that the most important thing is to live by the will and not by the emotions. You should never think that just because you do not have happy, wonderful feelings, you are therefore defeated. No, that is only your feeling; it is not real. I am afraid there is nothing in this world that is as undependable as our feelings. But what a pity that the thing that believers desire the most is wonderful feelings. The most deceiving thing is for a person to take his feelings as an indicator of his spiritual life. From now on, please learn to exercise your will to control your whole being and your feelings. If God rewards you with feelings, thank Him. If He does not and you feel lost at heart, go on as usual. Whatever you do when you have high feelings, do the same when you do not have these feelings. Quietly submit yourself to your will, and do not fluctuate through your feelings. Until you have overcome your habit of living by your feelings, God cannot greatly use you. He needs solid vessels, those who do not change due to circumstances. If you go on putting aside your feelings, you will find that you will live less by your feelings, and you will find your will becoming stronger and stronger.
