The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum "The Truth which sets Free." by Peter Dunstan

Dear friends, I am wondering if anyone has read the Book by Peter Dunstan called "The Truth which Sets Free." it is radical and very compelling reading, and quite an eye-opener. My husband and I have read it twice. One does not have to buy the Book, as the author has placed all the chapters on his website at www.destiner.com and it is there freely for all to read.
We would very much welcome anyone's opinion on this Book. Thank you. Sincerely, in Christ, English Rose

Just to say that the Book I mentioned earlier is for the Ekklesia (the elect of God) and will give encouragement and much blessing. Please read it on www.destiner.com and let me know your response. Thank you. One young man in another group is reading it and wants to encourage everyone else in that group to do so!
English Rose

Having had a quick look round his web site, he seems to tout the idea that the Antichrist is the church and so he advocates a churchless christianity.

This is not a view in accordance with the scriptures, where Christ promises to build his church throughout the ages.

In Christ,

James.

Yes, Christ promises to build His Ekklesia (his Elect, his called-out ones) not an organised "church" but a living body of believers! Please check out the Greek -

My husband says "you either see it or you don't"

English Rose

Rose,

From a reading of Scripture, one would be hard-pressed to not see that the "Church" of the Lord Christ is BOTH "invisible", i.e., the body of believers which were on earth, are presently on earth and are yet to be called to faith in Christ, aka: the elect of God, and "visible", i.e., true believers who gather together on the Sabbath of the Lord for worship, training and edification. The latter, the "visible" church is and must be of necessity "organized" for it is comprised of those men called of God and gifted by the Holy Spirit and those who are under their care; the sheep (e.g., Acts 20:28; Eph 4:11, 12; 1Tim 3:15; Heb 12:23; 1Pet 5:2). From my perspective, either one accepts the Scripture's teaching on this matter or one deliberately rejects it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Of a truth, not every group who professes to belong to the Church is part of the true Church. But nevertheless, the visible Church on earth is organized according to the regulations set forth by God in His infallible Word.

Perhaps the following three articles might shed more light on this for you:

1) The Church by Richard Baxter

2) The True Church by J.C. Ryle

3) Unity, Diversity and Division by R.B. Kuiper

In His grace,

dear Pilgrim, Thank you for yours. I will most certainly look up the links you have kindly given, and I read Ryle's "The True Church" years ago, as a very young believer.

I am just wondering then what you think of the many I know, including myself, who are isolated at home through severe illness, and never can attend any church! Are we not still part of the body? Also when I was still a member of a local church, I was still not visited, so my husband complained, when a rare visit was made and when challenged the pastor said, "If its not there, its NOT there!"
Only the Lord knoweth them that are His, and many in the body of Christ are neglected.
May I please say that if any of you know any chronically sick and who are true believers, please contact them or visit them, if they are well enough to receive visitors for a short time.
I know of many who are bound to home through illness, but so thankful to have computers for fellowship. But often I have questioned why the body of Christ so seldom want to make contact. Is it because they feel awkward, not knowing what to say or do?
I find it is only the sick who seem to care about the sick, and this is also my only friend's cry too!
I know I have gone away from the original subject, so please forgive me.
Thank you Pilgrim for taking the trouble to help me.
Yours, in Christ's Name, English Rose

English Rose,

You are member of the body and the Church should visit, comfort, pray, and exhort you. Many churches (individuals) are lacking in this ministry—however many are very good at it, visiting nursing homes and such in addition to their regular membership. There is still a remnant.

I wish we lived near you and your family so my wife and I could visit. Perhaps in a way God is supplying this forum to you so may be visited by “the Church” (believing posters) in “word” (our posts) because very few of us can make it to England?

Rose,

The answer to your first question concerning being part of the "body of Christ", is a resounding yes. The matter at hand, however, is whether or not the "Church" is organized. The Bible's answer to that question is also an indisputable "yes". The Church is both an organism comprised of all those who profess Christ and an organization comprised of its official biblically mandated structure, e.g., Pastors, Elders, Deacons, Laity. This is the "visible" expression of the Church within which there are those who profess Christ and do and those who profess Christ and who do not.

Anyone who has been regenerated by the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit and has come to faith in Christ and united to Him is infallibly and immutably made a member of the one true Church invisible. However, on this earth, there are mitigating circumstances which may prevent a child of God from attending worship and working among other believers in the visible church. In your particular situation, you are too ill to travel to a church in your area. In other situations, there may not be a true gospel-believing, gospel-preaching/teaching, gospel-practicing church which prevents one from becoming a member. But one's membership and/or participation in a local church does not make one a member of the true church. Nor does one's inability to be active in a local church deny one's membership in the true church; the body of Christ.

Lastly, your lament over the lack of a local church's compassion and yes, duty to visit the infirm and others who are unable to attend worship is noteworthy. I too have seen this in some churches over the years. When I was younger, this was one of my passions and I regularly visited rest homes, ministered to vagrants in Gospel Missions and was very active in Prison Ministry. I found it to be very rewarding to be able to bring some joy, comfort and/or counsel to those who otherwise would rarely if ever experience it.

May the Lord indeed send someone with a compassionate heart to visit you and often and share with you the goodness of God.

In His grace,

Thank you so much, Pilgrim, for your understanding post and I have noted all you have said.
There is a great lack of care and compassion for the sick, and recently a lady who has the same illness as myself wrote a booklet "Support for the Sufferers?" where basically is it? It is sadly a lament from the sick concerning the churches generally.
I am so glad that you were able to help out in the past where there was such a need. I, too, used to love to visit the Elderly and Rest Homes around here years ago.
Regarding the churches, we only know of ONE in the whole area which is preaching the true gospel of God's grace in Christ, but it is inaccessible in a wheelchair and is very solemn and has a closed Lord's table. So one has to accept what the Lord has permitted and be content in it.

Yours, in Christ, English Rose

Thank you very much, Jonathan, for your kind words. Yes, believe me, I do so greatly value fellowship on this Board and those I have met so far. I do believe the Lord has provided this precious fellowship for He knows all the circumstances and problems, and it is wonderful to meet up with those who are true believers in Christ.

I think there is a scripture somewhere about "If you have a willing mind, (even though you cannot do it) then that is acceptable to God." So your kind offer to visit, though you cannot, is certainly acceptable to Him.

Thank you. Yours, in Him, English Rose

The author's topical essay regarding any assertion that Christ ever had or has anything to do with founding or building a church (and the real origin of the word "church") can be found at this web page: http://www.destiner.com/destiner_topics_true_church.htm

Welcome to the Board! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hello.gif" alt="" />

I'm curious to know if you personally subscribe to Dunstan's assertions concerning the "Church"? and consequently, most every conservative Christian scholar (churchman) for the last 2 millennia has erred in the doctrine of Ecclesiology? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" />

My question is essentially the same as Pilgrim's with an added inquiry.

How do we find those Christians that are in spiritual or physical need if they are not already present or are not known by those that are already in the visible "church"?

I believe that there is a convincing exegesis of the theology of "church" from the the website of James White.

"Proof I Am At Least Trying To Be Disciplined

But the strongest argument I know regarding the biblical nature of church membership is probably the most obvious. What are the duties of elders? We can find their qualifications listed by Paul in writing to Timothy and Titus (1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-11) and from these glean much about their duties. And we have the plain statement of Peter,
Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, 2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; 3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock (1 Peter 5:1-3).
The argument is simple: shepherds must know their sheep to be able to fulfill their duties as shepherds. It’s just that simple. You cannot shepherd the flock of God when you haven’t a clue who the flock of God is. Every good shepherd knows his sheep. Only the hireling does not know the identity of the members of the flock. And, of course, the relationship is mutual. The sheep know their shepherd. They will not listen to another’s voice because they have been with the one shepherd so long they know his voice over against any pretenders or strangers. Such involves a relationship over time, just as the Christian elder is not to be a hireling, some young gun brought in from outside, but should be one who ideally fulfills the commandment of Paul, The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also (2 Timothy 2:2). The gospel is something that is precious, and you entrust it to the next generation. But it is the elders who make this decision, as they have to decide just who is truly faithful and who has the ability to teach others. All of this requires community, exposure, and contact, once again demonstrating that the shepherd must have direct knowledge of the identity, personally, of the sheep that have been entrusted to his care.
Further, Peter speaks of exercising oversight. While we may discuss the exact nature of what this means (and allow for differences given culture and geography and the like) one thing is for certain: it cannot be done without a relationship of some kind that involves real life. Obviously, this involved teaching and exhortation and discipline on the part of the elder. He is to be an example. You cannot be an example from a distance. You cannot be an example through a television screen or through the pages of a book. Modeling Christian maturity takes contact, exposure, and a reciprocal relationship that involves at least some kind of personal, communal, corporate context. All of this proves that despite the lack of the specific term membership rolls (something that would have been pretty dangerous at that point in time anyway), the activities of the elders and the form of the church itself require some to see the necessity of commitment to a particular fellowship identifiable by a particular group of elders. And if these texts were not enough, surely this command to all obedient Christians should be:
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you (Hebrews 13:17).
Here the Christian duty of obedience and submission, coupled with a need to make this work on the part of the elders of the congregation one of joy rather than grief, is enjoined upon all. This is not a command to servility, nor does it grant to Christian leaders despotic powers. But it does require believers to know who their leaders are. It is empty to say, "Jesus is my leader!" for the writer to the Hebrews did not say your "Leader" but your "leaders," plural, and he would distinguish between them and the Great Shepherd only a few lines later (13:20). Nor does it do to claim to be in obedience and submission to men who do not see your face but once or twice a year. How can they give an account when they have no meaningful knowledge of your life, your Christian experience, and your growth in godliness? How can they do so when you never attend upon their teaching or encounter them in the congregation?
James R. White - Category: Exegesis"

We are hardly like Jesus, Who could find His "church" in the midst of a raging storm (while walking on water) on the Galilean Sea. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cloud9.gif" alt="" />

Denny

Romans 3:22-24

I don't know who to ask but here's a question. If a person cannot show loyalty to the visible church how can he show himself loyal to the church universal? Just last Wednesday (8/29/07) in Islamabad two missionaries Arif Khan and his wife were shot dead in their home. Arif was a pastor (of a church) feeding a body of believers who had no teacher. Was it in vain?

William


[color:"0000FF"]¶ What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 8:32-39


1 John 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

[/color]

The author complains that the English word "church" is the invention of "churchmen" who "inserted" it into the Bible.

The Greek word, Ekklesia, had no English equivalent to convey it's full meaning. The Ekklesia is more than just "the elect." The Greek word refers to the function, life, government, and work of the Elect as a living body, in community. Jesus told of tares among the wheat to describe the fact that the "visible" Ekklesia (the body as we see it) is made up of both Elect and pretenders or deceived. Yet it is only the Elect (the body as God sees it) that is received by the Lord. The word "church" was already in use when Tyndale was doing his work, and was (and still is) the most fitting English equivalent word for the Greek word Ekklesia.

I haven't read Dunstan's book, nor do I intend to, because the entire argument on the introductory pages seems to be based on the idea that the word "church" isn't in the Bible. Neither is the word "baptize" for that matter. A word had to be "invented" to accomodate the greater meaning of the Greek baptizo (I don't think I spelled it right). The words "ceremonial washing" just don't quite convey the full sense of baptism. So the words "baptize" and "baptism" were "invented" and "inserted" into the translation. I don't hear any complaints about that from the author's introductory pages. Yet he takes extreme exception to the "invented" term Church being used to convey the full meaning of Ekklesia. I think he does so because he doesn't approve of "organized churches." Certainly there is plenty to disapprove of in "organized" Christianity. But that is no justification for changing the plain meaning of the Scriptures the way Dunstan apparently does in his book.