What Do We Learn From Genesis 39 On Fighting Temptations?

WHAT DO WE LEARN FROM GENESIS 39 ON FIGHTING TEMPTATIONS? 

By Ezekiel Kimosop 

Genesis 39:11-18 describes Joseph's encounter with Potiphar's wife who sought to draw him into adultery. 

Joseph's compelling faithfulness as a steward in his master's house is recorded in Genesis 39:1-10. His master had full trust and confidence in him and had assigned his domestic affairs into Joseph's hands. 

Interestingly, Joseph's Egyptian master had also discerned that God was with Joseph. How did this stand? 

This is perhaps the most significant reflection on Joseph's life that his pagan master captured. It was the fruit of godly diligence that stood out for Joseph. This is what stands out a faithful believer from a corrupt world. 

The story is told of a customer who asked the counter salesperson if he was a Christian! The brief conversation that followed revealed that the salesman was a church elder. He had noticed that the customer had mistakenly overpaid for an item by a colossal sum of money. He quickly rushed and called her back from across the street to collect the money. Few people would perhaps have bothered to do what this honest man had done since there would be no paper-trail evidence for any counterclaim. The salesman confessed that his moral convictions would not permit him to defraud his customers. 

During his temptation by his Egyptian master's wife, Joseph demonstrated his moral integrity which was founded on his covenant faithfulness with God. He was a man driven by his moral convictions on godly prudence. He was not ready to compromise on his covenant relationship with God even where the exigencies of convenience stood out for him. 

Joseph's statement in Genesis 39:9 affirms his unwavering moral standing. His rhetorical question is equally unparalleled. He candidly responded to his master's wife, saying: "There is no one greater in this house than I, nor has he kept back anything from me but you, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” (NKJV). 

Joseph was resolute that he would not fall for the woman's seduction. He was compelled to flee from his master's wife when she attempted to physically draw him into sexual sin. The woman later lied to her husband that Joseph had attempted to rape her! 

Joseph was eventually thrown into an Egyptian dungeon for a crime that he had never committed. God however stood with Joseph through his suffering and vindicated him in end. By God's grace, Joseph was finally released from prison. He rose to become the highest ranked officer in Pharaoh's court. 

MORAL LESSONS 

Joseph's encounter with his Egyptian master's wife teaches us a number of moral lessons on dealing with temptations in our Christian lives. 

First, we learn that a believer should stand by the convictions of God's word at all times. We should never give room to compromise. The Bible exhorts us to flee from every appearance of evil (1 Thessalonians 5:22). 

Secondly, we learn that Satan is always seeking the downfall of God's covenant people. He can even use people close to us to tempt us into disobedience. We should therefore stay alert at all times so that we do not fall into the hands of Satan and his agents. 

Scripture proclaims in 1 Peter 5:8 that our adversary walks around like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. This calls for diligence and fortitude among God's people in their daily walk of life. Scripture elsewhere exhorts us to resist the devil and he will flee from us.

Thirdly, we discover that no matter how many false accusations are filed against us, God will vindicate us in the end. Joseph suffered the humiliation of a life in the dungeon but his fellowship with the God of Israel was preserved. 

James 1:2-4 says "My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. 4 But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing." (NKJV). 

Fourthly, we learn that we should not seek vengeance against those who persecute us. There is no record in Scripture that Joseph carried any bitterness against his master. He could perhaps have used his high office to repay Potiphar in kind! He chose to endure it all to the glory of God. In Romans 12:9 God proclaims "Vengeance is mine, I will repay" (NKJV). Leave it to God!

Joseph later demonstrated compelling moral fortitude when he forgave his brothers who had sold him to an Ishmaelite slave Caravan for twenty shekels of silver (Genesis 37:28). His brothers lived in guilt until their father Jacob passed away. They feared that Joseph would revenge against them and sought forgiveness from him. 

Despite the agony he had suffered in their hands, Joseph chose to forgive his brothers even when he could have been justified in repaying them for their evil. He was overcome by godly emotion and profusely wept in their presence! 

In Genesis 50:20, Joseph answered his brothers saying "You meant it for evil; but God meant it for good." This statement reveals the wisdom of a man who had undergone affliction and learnt to submit to God in humility. 

Finally, we learn that God honors our faithfulness whenever we undergo afflictions in life. He will vindicate us at His appointed time. He restored great men of God such as Job, Joseph, and David who had endured harrowing afflictions. He rewards our diligence in His divine ways in this life and in the life to come. He will fulfill His divine purposes for our lives no matter what circumstances we go through in life. 

Keep it Christ!

© Ezekiel Kimosop 2026

Do We Have Apostolic Continuity and Spiritual Gifts in the Church?

Q & A WITH A READER ON APOSTOLIC AND SPIRITUAL GIFTS 

By Ezekiel Kimosop 

Q.

1. Is there a difference between apostolic gift and apostolic office?

EK 

The office of apostle was constituted by Jesus Christ and assigned to specific persons appointed by Him. I have not found any evidence in Scripture to suggest that a specific spiritual gift accompanies the appointment to apostolic office. However, the proclamation of the gospel is a continuing apostolic mandate for the church. 

My reading of Ephesians 4:11 reveals that the apostolic office is itself a divine gift to the church. God used it to lay the foundation on which the church has been built through the ages. Most of the New Testament Scriptures were written by the apostles. 

Q.

2. Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 12 mention the gifts for the equipping of the church

3. If apostle means "the sent", commissioned by Jesus. How could the 12 accomplish the assignment of the ends of the world (great commission). Doesn't this presuppose continuity? Work that is still going on

EK 

The Greek plural noun apostoloi means "the sent or those sent". This title has been assigned to missionaries and evangelists in its broader context. The twelve apostles were meant to constitute the ecclesial foundation of the New Testament church. 

Paul was later added by Jesus in person and assigned to the Gentile church.

Yes, the apostolic mission has been an active ministry throughout the church ages, thanks to the missionaries and evangelists that took the gospel across the world in succeeding periods. The New Testament apostles had teams of missionaries working with them too. 

This does not however imply that the apostles appointed by Jesus in person had perpetual successors through the church ages. Scripture rules out this possibility. Acts 1:21-22 says: 

"Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” (NKJV).

This text is explicit on the qualifications for the apostolic office being restricted to those who served with Christ and witnessed His resurrection. In Evangelical tradition, we recognize the authority of this Scripture as infallible. Accordingly therefore, we unequivocally hold that there can be no living apostle after the New Testament church period. 

Q.

4. Is the theological conclusion made directly stated in scripture? Cessationism argue that the canon is complete but that doesn't necessarily equate to the gifts themselves ending

EK 

This question has been addressed in my closing statement above. Yes, there cannot be apostolic continuity in the context of the primary apostolic office contemplated in Acts 1:21-22 and Ephesians 4:11-12.

Q.

5. If the prophecy ended, why did Paul deliberately explain and give instructions on how the church should handle prophecy? See 1 Cor 12-14. 

Will it be more balanced to look at this that there may be gifted sent ones and prophetic functions today that dont establish doctrine or add revelation beyond scripture? 

Pauls guidance of 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21, 1 Cor 12:10, Acts 17:11, 1 John 4:1, 1 Corinthians 14:29 presupposes operations of these gifts and the call to be discerning. 

In 1 Corinthians 14:1 Paul encourages that we desire spiritual gifts especially prophesy. What did he mean?

EK 

I have extensively delved into these questions in the following articles whose links I shared with you:

1. Does God speak through Prophets Today?

2. Do we have Apostles in the Church Today? 

These articles appear on my website teaching blog LISTENING AND DOING BIBLICAL FORUM on ezekielkimosop@blogspot.com

My view is that some spiritual gifts were specific to the period coinciding with the Acts of the Apostles and have therefore ceased. These include the gift of prophecy and the gift of tongues. The gift of discernment is definitely active and so is the gift of teaching, evangelism, among others. Under Evangelical tradition, we believe that the gift of raising the dead was specifically assigned to Peter under the raising of Tabitha (Acts 9:36-43), and to Paul during the raising of Eutychus (Acts 20:7-12). We believe that the two incidents were intended for the authentication of the gospel on the two occasions described in Scripture and that this gift ceased forthwith. It was never replicated in the New Testament church or during the patristic periods. 

We believe that the biblical Scriptures indelibly convey the mind of God to the church in all church ages since the canonisation and that they are complete, prophetic, authoritative, and final. 

I hope this response is helpful. 

Thanks for the engagement. 

  

Shalom 

© Ezekiel Kimosop 2026

Is the Atonement of Christ Unlimited?

IS THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST UNLIMITED?

By Ezekiel Kimosop 

I am convinced that God's atonement in Christ is unlimited. By unlimited, I imply that it was not restricted to a given set or number of sinners. This is not to suggest that God intended to save all sinners unconditionally as claimed by proponents of the universalism doctrine. Scripture affirms that only those sinners who respond to God's saving grace in the gospel of Jesus Christ shall be saved (John 3:16-17). The limited atonement doctrine advanced by deterministic soteriology groups holds that God predetermined that a specific number of sinners were appointed to eternal life. This doctrine is, in my considered view, theologically inconsistent with the revelation and authority of Scripture. It is neither discernible nor remotely implied in any text or passage of Scripture. 

The fact that some sinners will not believe the gospel does not imply that God's atonement is lacking in efficacy or that God's sovereignty is placed in theological obscurity. Scripture teaches that God has granted every sinner a free will choice in the same manner that He did Adam. In Genesis 2:16-17, God warned Adam about the consequences of disobedience. This implies that God permits men the exercise of free will decisions in their engagement with God. He does not robotically control men's consciences or wills. Scripture alone is the exclusive manual for understanding the mind of God. Human philosophical theories, however intellectually refined, cannot oust the authority of God's word. 

The doctrine of limited atonement, in my view, presupposes that God determined ahead of time that His redemption works in Christ Jesus shall be applied to only a limited number of sinners and to the exclusion of the rest that will be condemned eternal damnation in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:7-15). 

This doctrine also implies that God created some people, a large number of them, in His own image and likeness simply to deny them His saving grace. It also implies that some sinners would earn His grace unconditionally. This violates several passages of Scripture including John 3:16-17; Romans 10:5-21 and 2 Peter 3:9. These texts and passages reveal God's intentions on reaching out to all sinners with His saving grace. 

In settling for the limited atonement doctrine, the following regrettable theological inconsistencies stands out, in my view:

First, the God of Scripture is portrayed as insincere and dishonest concerning His revelation in Christ Jesus and that He never after all intended to reach out to all sinners except a select few. Such a conclusion is theologically inconceivable (cf. Numbers 23:19). It impugns the character of the holy and righteous God of Scripture. 

Secondly, God is portrayed as unjust. Sinners who end up in hell had no real choices to make either in their obedience or the lack of it since their destiny had been sealed long before they were born! This also brings into question the validity of God's justice in the face of theological determinism.

Thirdly, God is revealed as an utterly discriminative God. He condemns some sinners arbitrarily without an objective basis even as He saves others without any rational basis, contrary to the revelation of Scripture in Jeremiah 17:9-10; Ezekiel 3:18-20; John 3:16-17; and 1 John 2:2. 

Fourthly, the implications for the limited atonement doctrine are far reaching and appear to exceed the confines of the authority, provisions and intentions of the Author of Scripture. It also presupposes that God's promise in John 3:16-17 and other relevant passages of Scripture should be understood in a different context, far from the Author's intentions. Some deterministic scholars have attempted to deny the plain reading of some texts of Scripture that contradict their doctrines. 

The Limited Atonement doctrine is therefore unbiblical, in my view. While it finds the support of deterministic philosophical groups, the doctrine is inadmissible in any Bible centered Christian community that holds the revelation of Scripture as sacred, authoritative, and final. 

I submit that God's atonement in Christ Jesus is unlimited and efficacious in all ages since Calvary and that no sinner is beyond its divine path. The atonement is sufficient to cover virtually every speck of sin in the world, past, present, and future. The only impediment that holds back this atonement is unbelief or rebellion against God. A sinner who hears the gospel proclaimed and ends up hell cannot look God in the eye and blame Him for his fate. God made the way for ALL sinners to receive His pardon in Christ. A sinner's rejection of God's grace is a sure ticket to eternal damnation unless they change their minds while the window of God's grace is still open. 

God never chose or condemned sinners outside Calvary. He chose the means of atonement by which those who would believe the gospel of Jesus Christ would be saved. No sinners were predestined for eternal damnation. 2 Peter 3:9 says God does not wish that any sinner should perish but that all should come to repentance. 

Have you received God's atonement in Christ Jesus?

Shalom 

© Ezekiel Kimosop 2026

Will a Believer miss Heaven if they are Not Baptized?

WILL A BELIEVER MISS HEAVEN IF THEY ARE NOT BAPTIZED? 

By Ezekiel Kimosop 

*John 3:5 (KJV)* 

[5]Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

• Shed light on the above, in relation to the thief on the Cross (Luke 23:39-43; Matthew 27:38, 44; Mark 15:27, 32.).

• In other words, will a Believer miss Heaven due to lack of Baptism?

MY TAKE 

My view is that no text or passage of Scripture teaches or implies that a believer will miss heaven for lack of water baptism. Christian baptism is a biblical rite that attests to the believer's inner transformation in Christ. It is not the means to salvation. It is evidence of salvation. 

This is not to suggest or imply that water baptism is insignificant for believers. It is one of the two Christian rites commanded by Christ. It should therefore be observed in obedience to Christ.

The purpose of this article is to set the record straight on the question raised by a reader. 

John 3:5 says "Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (NKJV). 

This text of Scripture does not imply that water baptism is a prerequisite to salvation.. It is an allegorical reference to the ritual cleansing of sin and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. Notice the clarification by Jesus in John 3:6-8. Spiritual rebirth is a divine gift from God that is accessible to any sinner who repents and turns to Christ (cf. John 3:16-17). 

2 Corinthians 6:14-16 says: "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? 15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God" (NKJV). 

The three rhetorical questions raised by Paul in this passage underscore the significance of the sanctification of the believer in Christ. This transformation implies that the believer is separated from the sinful world as he grows in faith. 

Notice the implication of the closing statement in v.16. The believer is indeed indwelt by the Holy Spirit. This is consistent with John 14:15-17 which says:

"If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you" (NKJV). 

No matter how young in faith, a believer is able to discern the presence and indwelling of the Holy Spirit in their lives. This discernment continues to grow as they walk with Christ. 

2 Corinthians 5:17 says "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new" (NKJV). 

This text affirms the spiritual transformation in the believer's life in Christ. His worldview and inner life is consistently reformed by God through sanctification so that the believer is daily conformed to Christ. His new stature as a child of God is notably distinct from his former self (cf. Romans 13:14; Galatians 3:27). 

Despite his life of evil, the thief on the cross expressed remorse. He was assured of eternal life on account of his faith in Christ. Why? Because he called on the Savior saying "...Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom" (Luke 23:42). Jesus' response in v. 43 is theologically understood as evidence of the thief's forgiveness of sin and his assurance of resurrection upon Christ's coming. He may have missed out on water baptism but he struck the right code - he submitted to Christ and this is all that counted for him.

The fact that the account on Jesus' crucifixion with the two thieves and his engagement with the thief on the cross appear in all the Synoptic Gospels is perhaps evidence of its significance in biblical soteriology. It affirms that salvation is exclusively anchored on God's grace rather than on any ritual or works. It is the gift of God in Christ Jesus. This gift was extended to the thief with a broken heart. His stubborn colleague lost out on God's grace. 

Ephesians 2:8-9 proclaims: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast." 

This text should debunk any mystery or doubt in the reader's mind. Salvation is by God's grace alone which is received through faith in Christ alone.

If water baptism is a cardinal prerequisite for salvation, Scripture should have expressly affirmed it. Scripture cannot speak from two sides of the mouth! 

Here's the conclusion to this matter - water baptism is not a prerequisite for salvation. Faith in Christ Jesus is. Water baptism is an outward ritual that illustrates the inner transformation of the believer. A believer should therefore submit to water baptism in obedience to Christ's command in Matthew 28:19-20. 

Shalom 

© Ezekiel Kimosop 2026

Biblical Principles for Christian Giving: Lessons from the Teaching of Jesus

BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES ON CHRISTIAN GIVING - LESSONS FROM THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS 

By Ezekiel Kimosop 

INTRODUCTION 

There is so some residual confusion today regarding Christian giving. Several giving methodologies apply depending on the traditions of the denominations in question, Moreover, arguments fly across online forums as to what constitutes appropriate biblical giving. 

My article will not exhaustively address this issue but I wish to narrow down on a particular area of teaching by Jesus which hopefully provides a glimpse into what should inform our Christian giving. 

Jesus taught in Matthew 22:21 that we should give to Caesar what is Caesar's (statutory taxes and levies) and to God what is God's (tithes and offerings). This teaching is also recorded in Mark 12:17 and Luke 20:25. 

Jesus revealed in this passage that civic obligations are distinct from our religious duties. He also acknowledged that the Roman rulers were divinely permitted by God to collect taxes notwithstanding the humiliation that the Jews felt about their occupation of Palestine. 

No matter how much we may dislike those in authority, we have an obligation from God to discharge our civic mandates as citizens of the country and pay taxes. Any practices that depart from this biblical principle is, in my view, misleading and should be rejected by God's people.

It is imperative therefore that what is left from our income after satisfying these twin obligations should be at our disposal and is blessed by God for our application.  

I am persuaded that believers should tithe from their income and give offerings on a free-will basis in accordance with their convictions and in line with the exhortation of 2 Corinthians 9:6-8 which proclaims thus:

"But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work." (NKJV). 

A believer is however not compelled to tithe or give an offering to God. Christian giving is a voluntary duty. It is a godly calling to all God's people. A believer who chooses to withhold from God has probably not discerned the mind of God and his relationship with Him! 

There are blessings attached to our giving and this truth is affirmed in several passages of Scripture. 

I will not get into details because I have severally posted teachings on this forum on tithes and offerings and even on first fruits. 

The purpose of writing this article was partly to respond to the article shared by a forum participant which I posted on this forum. The story related to an incident in Nigerian where a Catholic faithful gave her entire first salary to the priest after mass as first fruits and the priest returned the envelope to her after realizing that she had given everything. 

There is nothing wrong with voluntarily sacrificing the most one can achieve to serve the Lord but there is everything wrong with operating under a false theological framework, not only in Christian giving but in general Christian living. 

I therefore find no biblical basis for giving one's entire salary, income, or harvest as first fruits though I will not question a believer's right to respond to their convictions on giving. 

I am aware that someone may quickly turn to Mark 12:42-44 and argue that Jesus approved the giving of one's livelihood to God! Does the widows sacrificial giving stand out as a model for Christian giving? How should the reader of Scripture interpret this temple incident? 

Luke 21:2-3 says "And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, 2 and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. 3 So He said, “Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; 4 for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had.” (NKJV). 

Did Jesus statement imply that those who give their entire income to God are acting in godly deportment? 

Is this really what Jesus was teaching in this context? 

My view is that it would be a misrepresentation of biblical truth to attempt to interpret Scripture outside it's passage context in order to justify certain unbiblical practices! 

The poor widow who gave all she had was commended by Jesus for her sacrificial giving in that she gave proportionately much more than the rich men who gave out of their abundance! 

Nowhere in Scripture is it taught or implied that believers should sell all they have and give their entire harvest or resources to the church! How will the believer cater for his personal and family needs? 

Do you recall the warning in Matthew 27:6? This should be read together with Jesus' admonition in Mark 7:10-13.

Jesus said: "For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.” (NKJV).

The challenge that Jesus threw to the rich young ruler in Matthew 19:21-22 and Mark 10:21 simply serves as an illustration on how people will miss out on God because of their inordinate devotion to the things of this passing world. We cannot develop a doctrine on Christian giving exclusively from this passage. We need to balance the Scriptures methodically so that we can discern the full counsel of God on a given topic or issue. 

Similarly, the incident in Acts 2:43-44 does not suggest that believers are compelled to dispose all their assets and give to the church or to the poor. This account merely served a demonstrate how deeply this Jerusalem Christian had bonded in fellowship. Notice that Peter was careful to later clarify that the Jerusalem Christian giving was voluntary (Acts 5:4).

In the case of the poor widow above, Jesus simply commended the sacrificial giving by the widow IN COMPARISON to the rich people who gave only a token of what they possessed. They could have done better if the standards of the poor widow were to apply. 

Christian giving is about equal or comparable sacrifice and not equal giving! 

The fact that one believer gives Kshs 10,000/- and another Kshs 100/- does not necessarily suggest that the Kshs 10,000/- giver gave more in God's eyes than the believer who parted with Kshs 100/- . 

It is possible that the Kshs 100/- giver sacrificed more given his financial or income status. This is what lay the crust of Christ's exhortation. It is the theological crucible! 

I hope this short article is helpful in clarifying some of the issues raised on Christian giving.

I welcome any comments or requests for clarification. 

Shalom 

© Ezekiel Kimosop 2026

Is it Biblical for a Christian to Regularly Attend or Belong to Two or More Church Assemblies in Town?

BQ NO 64 -  IS IT BIBLICAL FOR A CHRISTIAN TO REGULARLY ATTEND OR BELONG TO TWO OR MORE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES IN TOWN? 

By Ezekiel Kimosop

My view is that a believer should belong to one primary local church assembly in their urban location where they work or live. If the issue however concerns whether one can occasionally visit or attend a service in another church beside their own local urban assembly, my answer is in the affirmative. A believer may visit another church once in while provided that they do so with some measure of accountability.

For instance if for a good reason I happen to be away on travel, I should simply attend a nearby Bible-believing church. Biblically speaking, all believers belong to one universal communion of saints in Christ and for this reason we should identify with one another despite the church tradition differences between the denominations. We should however be agreed on the fundamental truths of God's word. The Bible declares in 1 Corinthians 12:13 "For by one Spirit we [believers] are all baptized into one body.... and have all been made to drink into one Spirit."

One's level of stewardship also matters in our discretions. If as an elder or pastor I choose to worship or minister in another church on one particular Sunday, I should notify my pastor or one of the church elders that I won't be available that Sunday. For those engaged in group ministry activities, a notification to your group leaders is essential. This is a good practice that believers should embrace for purposes of stewardship and accountability.

However, if a believer purports to concurrently hold membership in two or more churches in town, I have some strong reservations for this strange practice unless it can be qualified. It is simply impracticable for a believer, church minister or elder to belong to two or more urban churches at the same time even where they happen to regularly preach or serve them. One of the churches should be their primary congregation to which they are accountable. 

I have heard some believers argue that the Bible does not expressly forbid a believer from being a member of more than one church. However, we need to appreciate that the local assembly is the basic unit in which believers find expression as a Christian community and we need to observe spiritual discipline and accountability in identifying with one another in the Lord.

Scripture may not contain any express prohibitions or rules on multiple church membership but it is nonetheless implied in the Bible that believers should belong to a specific local church assembly where they are instructed, edified and admonished in Christ and can effectively serve God while being accountable to their Christian community of context. 

This was the practice in the New Testament church where believers belonged to cells that met in homes of mature believers or elders. In a number of his letters, Paul often passed his greetings to believers who gathered in homes (cf.  Romans 16:15; 1 Corinthians; 1:11 Philippians 4:22; 2 Timothy 4:19).

Notice further that the immoral believer mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5 was identified with a particular Corinthian assembly to which Paul addressed his Letter. Paul instructed the leaders that when they are assembled together, they should excommunicate the immoral man from their midst (1 Cor. 5:4). The reference to the gathering together of believers is evidence of a local Christian assembly context. 

Notice also the reference to the Christian community gathering in Acts 12:2-16. Peter had been arrested and locked up by the Roman authorities for preaching Christ and the Jerusalem believers gathered behind locked doors at the home of John Mark to intercede for him. This destination was possibly one of the homes where the church often met.

Why should we identify with a specific local church assembly?

In addressing this question, I am aware that many urban believers also belong to rural churches which they occasionally visit. If I happen to attend my rural church no more than once a month, then my urban church is my principal assembly. My urban church pastor and his ministry team are therefore foremost responsible for my spiritual wellbeing.

First, it is instructive that the basis of communion under a local church assembly context is implied in 1 Corinthians 11:33-34 where believers are commanded to wait for one another before celebrating the Lord's Table. These Corinthian believers were members of a distinct church assembly who knew one another and who identified with one another in fellowship and Christian service. 

Secondly, it is practically difficult for a believer to effectively serve or participate in the activities of two or more urban churches at the same time without preferring one to the other. They are also likely to experiencing fatigue or burn out. For instance, one cannot sign up for choir in the two city churches and attend weekly practices and sing in both churches on Sunday!

There are many "nomadic" believers today especially in urban churches who regularly move from one church to another because they consider each of the churches as having a special spiritual blend for their wellbeing that is missing in another. I once heard a young believer say that he regularly attends two city churches because one of the churches has a vibrant worship experience but their ministers do not teach as well as those in the other church. He therefore leaves the first church immediately after the worship session and proceeds to the second church for the sermon. This is a regrettable scenario that should be avoided! 

My view is that if we focus on one Christian assembly, we are better placed to bring our ideas on board on how best we can improve the worship, teaching, and fellowship experience in the congregation. We should regularly provide valuable feedback to our elders and ministers on the quality of church services instead of crisscrossing between two churches in an attempt to bridge the gap.

The third problem identified with some "nomadic" believers is the confusion that comes with mixing several doctrines and traditions borrowed from various Christian communities, some of which are inconsistent with Scripture. The nomadic believer may eventually be unsettled by the different standpoints that each ministry holds on the interpretation of biblical doctrines and church practices.

I know of one brother who crisscrossed four Evangelical and Pentecostal churches in Nairobi for a period of about two decades before settling into a conservative Evangelical church. The man subscribes to a set of strange doctrines because one of the churches he attended can be classified as an ultra charismatic and neo-cultic sect. The brother has considerable difficulty reconciling the sets of conflicting doctrines that he embraced in the churches.    

There are also believers who run away to other churches while under church discipline imposed on them by their previous church on legitimate grounds. This is an unbiblical way of responding to conflicts and may be evidence of spiritual immaturity. A believer should submit to legitimate church organs including a discipline tribunal in the fear of the Lord. 

If for legitimate reasons a believer is aggrieved by the manner in which a conflict was handled and has exhausted the appeal mechanisms with a clear conscience, and is compelled by circumstances to move to another church, they should declare their status to the minister of the new church so that they can be counseled and offered spiritual support in resolving the conflict with his previous church. Matthew 18:15-20 provides an elaborate illustration and insights on conflict resolution among believers. 

If for example one was excluded from partaking in Holy Communion in the previous church because of unresolved moral issues, then the restrictions imposed by his previous church should continue to apply until the matter is resolved. He should therefore refrain from partaking in Holy Communion in the new congregation until the conflict is resolved. Jesus' exhortation in Matthew 5:23-24 is instructive on conflict resolution and holding a clear conscience before God. 

In roaming between two or more churches, the "nomadic" believer misses out on consistent instruction and edification in the word of God and may lose out on effective spiritual cover where it matters. This is the reason that most "church nomads" are spiritually weak. They do not receive regular instruction in the way of Christ and may fall into the hands of false teachers. 

I do however recognize that there are believers who, for no fault of their own, find themselves traveling in their official duties or business engagements between towns and regions, and accordingly identify with two or three church assemblies. Even under these unusual circumstances there ought to be a primary assembly to which the believer is ultimately accountable.

Let me give my example here. I minister in a Nairobi church as an associate pastor. This church has also been my family church for nearly two decades now. I also have a separate church ministry in my upcountry home area where I visit at least once a month. I oversee this ministry and keep constant touch with the leaders on regular issues while in the city. This situation places me in the hands of two ministers - my senior pastor in my Nairobi church to whom I am directly responsible both as a minister and as a believer on the one part, and my Bishop in Eldoret to whom I am answerable as a minister. The Nairobi church is however my primary assembly where I worship and minister with my family. 

The unique circumstances of my ministry work have tied me between the two churches for now. This is however a rare situation and few believers can perhaps identify with this scenario.

My concluding view is therefore that every believer should identify with and belong to a specific local church assembly where they are edified and consistently taught and equipped in the Lord for service (Ephesians 4:11-14). By belonging to a local assembly, we are in no way discounting the universality of the communion of all believers worldwide. We are simply emphasizing on what we can discern from the text of Scripture. Our regular and consistent participation in a local church assembly facilities opportunities for consistent fellowship engagement and growth in our knowledge of Christ. It also opens up platforms for effective service and accountability in the body of Christ. Christian nomadism should be checked. 

Yes, we all belong together in Christ notwithstanding the differences in our Christian traditions, provided of course that we are agreed on the fundamental and inalienable truths of Scripture. There is perhaps no legitimate reason why churches within a given locality cannot host joint conferences, missions, and other common church events so that they strengthen one another and reach out to the lost in their regions of context. They should establish a local pastors' fellowship that provides an effective platform for our inter-communion or ecumenical engagement among themselves.

Churches should not consider themselves as competing organizations or entities in a given locality in the way that business organizations do! It is for instance unbiblical to set up a church ministry with the objective of snatching believers from another existing local assembly or to frustrate a new church ministry for fear of "stealing" the sheep. 

I must however unreservedly rule out any communion at whatever level between a Bible-centered church and a cultic or apostate Christian sect. We have strictly no communion whatsoever with any religious sect whose view of Christ and His finished works of the cross is manifestly wanting and whose doctrines and practices are inconsistent with the revelation and authority of Scripture. It does not matter how large or popular or influential such a denomination or sect is in the society.

We have previously discussed the key signs or marks of cultic and neo-cultic Christian sects under this forum.

Shalom

© Ezekiel Kimosop 2016

[This article was originally posted on the L & D WhatsApp forum on 22 July 2016. It was sparingly revised on 30 September 2025]

When can a Doctrine be Considered Truly Biblical?

WHEN CAN A DOCTRINE BE CONSIDERED TRULY BIBLICAL?

By Ezekiel Kimosop

My view is that a doctrine can be considered biblical on the following considerations, among others:

First, a biblical doctrine must be aligned to the revelation and authority of Scripture. It must find its theological anchor on God's eternal word. Its authority and superintendence in a Christian community stands on its validity in conveying a set of biblical truths to its readers and hearers. My view is that any doctrine that falls short of this consideration is decidedly unbiblical.

A suitable illustration can be identified in 1 Timothy 1:18-20 where Paul confronts two deviant Ephesian teachers. The two men rejected some unspecified fundamental teachings of the church and accordingly "suffered shipwreck". This is an allegorical depiction of the perilous impact of the false teaching on those who subscribed to it.

Another set of heretics mentioned in 2 Timothy 2:17-18 taught that the resurrection of believers was already past! This teaching implied that those "left behind" including the two heretics were not true believers! Paul was compelled to excommunicate the first set of heretics from the Ephesian Christian community until and unless they recanted the heresy.

Secondly, a biblical doctrine should guide believers in assimilating the truths of God's word under a given theological context. For instance, Christian soteriology or doctrine of salvation is governed by a specific set of doctrines that concern the works of Christ which the church has affirmed through the ages since the New Testament. A biblical doctrine stands on specific pillars of Scripture. It affirms certain fundamental biblical truths for which emphasis should be laid to the congregation or members of the Christian tradition.

Thirdly, a biblical doctrine should serve to distinguish Bible-centered Christian groups from heretical and apostate sects. Most cultic groups subscribe to doctrines that violate or materially contradict the teaching of Scripture. Some Christian sects deny the deity and divinity Jesus Christ and/or the Holy Spirit. Other groups violate Hebrews 1:1-2 and other relevant passages of Scripture that affirm that Jesus Christ is the final prophet to the church. Instead, they teach that verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture is still open and that the writings of their leaders are inspired.

If a Christian doctrine substantially fails the test of Scripture, it should be flatly rejected by Bible-believing Christian communities. Its teachers should also be singled out for isolation.

 

© Ezekiel Kimosop 2025