Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

95 Theses Against Dispensationalism


anime4christ
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Sorry, but I am confused!!
My understanding is that we are saved by grace. Before the death and resurrection of Christ it was through the Law (IE: works based on obedience and the sacrifices for remission of sins). Now there is no Jew or Greek so all must now be saved by grace through Christ - the Jew and the gentile.
Who teaches that Jews have a different covenant now in this "age" of grace - have never heard this before? The Jews are to be saved through grace now and only those that are around after the rapture (another word not seen in the bible - like dispensations - yet believed to be a promised fact) are to be saved through works and standing fast to the end.

Also, just to add some spice. How were those from Adam to Moses saved if the Law only came through Moses on the mount?

Wrong or right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Sorry, but I am confused!!
You are right to feel confused - those who are not confused haven't understood the discussion ....

My understanding is that we are saved by grace. Agreed. Before the death and resurrection of Christ it was through the Law (IE: works based on obedience and the sacrifices for remission of sins). No. Those acts of themselves could not save - they could not make a person righteous in God's sight. Hebrews makes it clear that faith was essential, & a common factor with all OT saints. Now there is no Jew or Greek so all must now be saved by grace through Christ - the Jew and the gentile. Agreed - grace through faith in Christ.

Who teaches that Jews have a different covenant now in this "age" of grace - have never heard this before?
Read it here:

Read on & you will see that Hagee & Falwell deny the report.

The Jews are to be saved through grace now and only those that are around after the rapture (another word not seen in the bible - like dispensations - yet believed to be a promised fact) (why is "rapture" used rather than the Scriptural word "resurrection"?) are to be saved through works and standing fast to the end. Now that is "another Gospel" for the Jews. Surely they will need grace through such a time to maintain faith in extreme adversity. We certainly do.

Also, just to add some spice. How were those from Adam to Moses saved if the Law only came through Moses on the mount? Only by grace, through faith - the faith of these is recorded in Hebrews.

Wrong or right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Some dispensationalists try to hide it or disclaim it now, but one of the bad points of dispensationalism has been the teaching that people in different dispensations were saved in different ways.


That's like saying one of the bad points of the IFB movement is that there are some within it who ascribe to Calvinism, or some that are not KJVO, or some that are off on their music. Not everyone sees it the same, but the basic principles are consistent. You and your Reformed friends keep wanting to pick at the edges and ignore the basic principles that make dispensational study so helpful and rewarding. I've given plenty of practical reasons for obeying the command given in II Tim. 2:15, but you and many others here have some self-imposed and reactionary blinders to the obvious truth and necessity to recognize some different ages in the Bible. I'll probably be checking out of the conversation soon because these straw man arguments against dispensationalism are lame and tiresome.

Another thing: just because some dispensationalists happen to also be Charismatics doesn't prove anything either. They obviously have failed in the area of rightly dividing the word because they think that God is still operating the exact same way now that He was in early part of the book of Acts. They may be smart enough to see the difference between the law and the church, but they fail to see what is going on the middle.

When God changes things, it's important to recognize the change for practical and doctrinal reasons. The Bible calls recognizing that as "rightly dividing." To fail to recognize the divisions within scripture is to disobey the most important command of God when it comes to personal Bible study.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

"Rightly divide" doesn't mean run amok, making lots of divisions. There is an emphasis on "rightly" & it means understanding & teaching, breaking down theological concepts into milk for babes, & digestible portions for the more mature. The verse doesn't justify disp divisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scoffield and Darby both originally taught that people were saved by different means in different dispensations. This teaching comes from the root, not the fringe, of dispensationalism. There are more dispensational Pentecostals and charismatics than covenantal ones. There are very few covenantal Pentecostals and covenantal charismatic (usually NCT rather than CT) are generally less crazy than dispensational charismatics. That would lead me to believe that the majority of covenantals are better at rightly dividing than dispensationalists. At least they are far more consistent if you want to argue statistics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

"Rightly divide" doesn't mean run amok, making lots of divisions. There is an emphasis on "rightly" & it means understanding & teaching, breaking down theological concepts into milk for babes, & digestible portions for the more mature. The verse doesn't justify disp divisions.


That verse not only justifies dispensational divisions, it demands it. Just as there are Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists, so too there are Dispensationalists and hyper-Dispensationalists. Recognizing a dispensational division is not the same a running amok and building hard and fast walls all over the Bible. Many of the dispensations do run into each other, such as the Law and the Apostolic Age, and the Apostolic Age and the Church. Hyper-Dispensationalism tosses everything out except Paul, biblical rightly dividing does not.

Considering you can't tell the difference between two battles that are separated by 1,000 years, you are hardly an authority on what rightly dividing means.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



That verse not only justifies dispensational divisions, it demands it.
There are NO Scriptures that justify disp divisions.

Just as there are Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists, so too there are Dispensationalists and hyper-Dispensationalists. Recognizing a dispensational division is not the same a running amok and building hard and fast walls all over the Bible.
But it does create divisions & extra disps such as various future disps after Jesus returns for resurrection & judgement, including a millennium very similar to the present age. That's where you get you two battles - they are one, at the end of the present age.

Many of the dispensations do run into each other, such as the Law and the Apostolic Age, and the Apostolic Age and the Church.
Is "law" a disp? The temple & priesthood, i.e. the old covenant symbols, did continue until they were abolished in AD 70, but had no saving merit apart from the Gospel of Jesus. God is gracious & longsuffering, but that does not make a disp.


Hyper-Dispensationalism tosses everything out except Paul, biblical rightly dividing does not.

Considering you can't tell the difference between two battles that are separated by 1,000 years, you are hardly an authority on what rightly dividing means.
Revelation is a series of iterations - you've done a "Roadmap Through Revelation " how many battles are there, how many comings of Jesus? To what extent do the divisions overlap? Is Rev. 19 Gog/Magog or Armageddon, or a third final battle?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Who teaches that Jews have a different covenant now in this "age" of grace - have never heard this before?
Read it here:
"Dual Covenant" Theology?
Shortly after the launch of CUFI, the Jerusalem Post reported:
An evangelical pastor and an Orthodox rabbi, both from Texas, have apparently persuaded leading Baptist preacher Jerry Falwell that Jews can get to heaven without being converted to Christianity.
Televangelist John Hagee and Rabbi Aryeh Scheinberg, whose Cornerstone Church and Rodfei Sholom congregations are based in San Antonio, told The Jerusalem Post that Falwell had adopted Hagee's innovative belief in what Christians refer to as "dual covenant" theology.
This creed, which runs counter to mainstream evangelism, maintains that the Jewish people has a special relationship to God through the revelation at Sinai and therefore does not need "to go through Christ or the Cross" to get to heaven.
Scheinberg said this has been Hagee's position for the 25 years the two have worked together on behalf of Israel and that Falwell had also come to accept it. Falwell sent a representative to the San Antonio launch of Christians United for Israel in early February, as did popular televangelist Pat Robertson.


Sorry if this is off topic, but having read this one has to wonder on the doctrine of those pushing this agenda. Do they not undertsand that in order to be saved there had to be sacrifices and a temple? So how does the Jew now get saved under the OT covenant? There is no temple and there has been no sacrifices that I have been able to find with extensive research. Is there now a new "third" covenant just for the Jews after Christ. We (the believer) are now a living temple and the sacrifice was the Lamb of God - Jesus Christ. Can you imagine the bunny huggers reaction if the Jews were sacrificing lambs, goats, oxen, doves etc now?
My heart goes out to the orthodox Jew who knows that without the temple sacrifice he has no chance - unless I am missing something here and there is another way besides Christ and the cross?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Divide 2

Definition: To cause to be separate; to keep apart by a partition, or by an imaginary line or limit; as, a wall divides two houses; a stream divides the towns.

di·vide (dibreve.gif-vimacr.gifdprime.gif)
v. di·vid·ed, di·vid·ing, di·vides
v.tr.
1.
a. To separate into parts, sections, groups, or branches: divided the students into four groups..
b. To sector into units of measurement; graduate: The ruler was divided into metric units.
c. To separate and group according to kind; classify: divided the plants by genus.
2.
a. To cause to separate into opposing factions; disunite: "They want not to divide either the Revolution or the Church but to be an integral part of both" (Conor Cruise O'Brien).
b. To cause (members of a parliament) to vote by separating into groups, as pro and con.
3. To separate from something else; cut off: A mountain chain divides France and Spain.
4. To apportion among a number: Volunteers divided the different jobs among themselves.

We are to take the Word literally and the very word divide as used by Paul does not imply but states that we are to divide the Word of God with emphasis on rightly doing so. There is no hidden meaning here, no ambiguity, just a word that follows a series of commands that are all actions and the word divide in itself being a command. Nowhere can I find this word to mean anything besides what I have quoted from dictionaries above so how can we not do as we are told and separate the Word of God into divisions. Divisions placed there by God Himself by the His very actions and dealing with man. God is not the author of confusion and His word is Truth so it goes without saying that without these divisions God's Word becomes confusing, contradicting and misleading. We must always ask ourselves if it is not our pride in our own understanding that causes us to fight an obvious truth even if it goes against everything we have been taught, everything we know, even if what we have known to be true has been wrong our entire lives.

Was the world any less round because the learned men of the church believed it to be flat, was Jesus any less the Messiah just because the Jews didn't accept Him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



Sorry if this is off topic, but having read this one has to wonder on the doctrine of those pushing this agenda. Do they not undertsand that in order to be saved there had to be sacrifices and a temple? So how does the Jew now get saved under the OT covenant? There is no temple and there has been no sacrifices that I have been able to find with extensive research. Is there now a new "third" covenant just for the Jews after Christ. We (the believer) are now a living temple and the sacrifice was the Lamb of God - Jesus Christ. Can you imagine the bunny huggers reaction if the Jews were sacrificing lambs, goats, oxen, doves etc now?
My heart goes out to the orthodox Jew who knows that without the temple sacrifice he has no chance - unless I am missing something here and there is another way besides Christ and the cross?

John Hagee's "Dual Covenant" theology is a dangerous teaching. Jews are saved exactly like Gentiles...grace through faith. The ground is level at the foot of the cross. There is a need for Jewish evangelism (or support for Jewish missions {non Hebrew Roots/Messianic}) in the church. I was saved through the witness of a born again Gentile woman.

Here's a link to a very biblically based Jewish evangelism ministry. The article is on "Jewish Missions and the Local Church". It is one of a series of five articles on Jewish missions:

http://www.jewishawa...e-local-church/

BTW, this ministry is dispensational, but not hyper/ultra dispensational.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist




All these colors make things confusing. What we need here is some good division! :-)

The law was a clear dispensation, in fact one of the clearest. It is important to recognize the difference between that dispensation and today's, or you might wind up acting like a Seventh Day Adventist. Other Christians who ignore Acts 10:11-16, Col. 2:16 and Matthew 15:11 think that what type of food they eat has something to do with their relationship with God. Under the law it did, but now it doesn't. I ran into a missionary once who thought he was a little extra spiritual once becuase he never ate ice cream. Temperance is a New Testament doctrine, and so one should be careful about how much they eat, but eating a juicy piece of bacon is not wrong in of itself, and avoiding it doesn't make one holy.

To answer your question, there are two major battles coming. One before the 1,000 years and one after.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



That's like saying one of the bad points of the IFB movement is that there are some within it who ascribe to Calvinism, or some that are not KJVO, or some that are off on their music. Not everyone sees it the same, but the basic principles are consistent. You and your Reformed friends keep wanting to pick at the edges and ignore the basic principles that make dispensational study so helpful and rewarding. I've given plenty of practical reasons for obeying the command given in II Tim. 2:15, but you and many others here have some self-imposed and reactionary blinders to the obvious truth and necessity to recognize some different ages in the Bible. I'll probably be checking out of the conversation soon because these straw man arguments against dispensationalism are lame and tiresome.

Another thing: just because some dispensationalists happen to also be Charismatics doesn't prove anything either. They obviously have failed in the area of rightly dividing the word because they think that God is still operating the exact same way now that He was in early part of the book of Acts. They may be smart enough to see the difference between the law and the church, but they fail to see what is going on the middle.

When God changes things, it's important to recognize the change for practical and doctrinal reasons. The Bible calls recognizing that as "rightly dividing." To fail to recognize the divisions within scripture is to disobey the most important command of God when it comes to personal Bible study.

I had read some dispensational material before I was even saved. When I was saved I was attending a dispensational Assembly of God church with my girlfriend. I've read and studied dispensational material from that time onward and I still don't see it in Scripture and I still don't see any value in adding separations to Scripture that God didn't tell us to.

The reason I mentioned the charismatic dispensationalists is because one of the reasons someone put forth for why dispensationalism is necessary is to keep people from thinking things such as what occured in Acts (speaking in toungues) is for today. The claim being that separating the Word into dispensations prevents people in one dispensation from applying things from other dispensations. Obviously, that's not the case or we wouldn't have dispensational charismatics.

Again, 2 Tim 2:15 doesn't tell us to separate the Word of God into dispensations. Artificial lines of separation installed by man are not necessary in order to rightly understand the Word. One can plainly read the Word and know Christians don't need or have to perform animal sacrifices without someone choosing to make 7, 9, 10 or some other number of separate dispensations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The words used is "divide," and it is used for a reason. The Bible you carry is already divided one time between the Old and New Testaments, so you have to believe in at least two dispensations or you need a different book. That's the basic principle, and it's a natural, basic, biblical principle. If you want to be reactionary against it that's on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The words used is "divide," and it is used for a reason. The Bible you carry is already divided one time between the Old and New Testaments, so you have to believe in at least two dispensations or you need a different book. That's the basic principle, and it's a natural, basic, biblical principle. If you want to be reactionary against it that's on you.


Um, no..I believe there are two testaments in my bible, not two dispensations..it says Old Testament and New Testament in mine.

The word dispensation means giving out, not period of time, in the bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The word "dispensation" means:

Strong's Greek Dictionary
3622. oikonomia

oikonomia oy-kon-om-ee'-ah

from 3623; administration (of a household or estate); specially, a (religious) "economy":--dispensation, stewardship.

It's found in Luke 16:2, 3, & 4, where it is defined as "stewardship"

Luke 16:2 And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; (oikonomia) for thou mayest be no longer steward.

Luke 16:3 Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship:(oikonomia) I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.

Luke 16:4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship,(oikonomia) they may receive me into their houses.

In 1 Corinthians 9:17 dispensation means "administration of a house or property management":

1 Corinthians 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation (oikonomia) of the gospel is committed unto me.

In Ephesians 1:10, Ephesians 3:2 and Colossians 1:25 "dispensation" means the administration of God's eternal plan.

Ephesians 1:10 That in the dispensation (oikonomia) of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation (oikonomia) of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Colossians 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation (oikonomia) of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

Dispensations are the means of how God "administrates" His plan during different periods of time throughout history.

Edited by LindaR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I agree, just I missed the last part in my bible. If I'm a project manager and I tell my subcontractors what to do, can I require the same labor from my cousin who is not a subcontractor and has nothing to do with the project during my time administrating the project? If this question makes no sense, I'd just like to say it's following the principle of dispensationalism which puts everyone under the demands of a dispensation whether or not they are included in a covenant to which the supposed dispensation is loosely linked to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

All right, lets get off this word "dispensation" for a bit and look at the Word. We can agree that there are two testaments - the old and the new. We can agree that in these two testaments God had different methods for salvation, one works (and faith) based and one by grace alone (faith) - one based on man, the other on God and eternal - so we have to agree that there are two exceedingly different divisions in the bible placed there by God. Lets look at two more divisions, that between the early NT church and now. Signs and wonders for the Jews and wisdom (The Word) for the Greeks (us). So there are clearly divisions in how, when and the why of God dealing with man.
If we are not taught to rightly "divide" these "divisions" we have many confused Christians and whether we call them dispensations, covenants, divisions or ages makes no difference to the fact that they are there and are there for a specific purpose - that being the revealing of God's methods, character and Glory to man.
Don't you think that we through pride get caught up in our own idea of who is right or wrong, that the devil can lead us into an endless circle of argument (disagreement not war) that leads us away from the truth - I was always taught that a preacher with an agenda to prove ONE point of the Word and not the whole is one to steer clear of. Does it make any difference to ones salvation what we call it? Does it make the Cross any less powerful or take any glory from God what term we use? That there are clear delineations (another term for you to disagree on :boxing: ) in the Word of God is obvious to any serious bible student regardless of the terminology we use to label them - how we "rightly divide" them is though is the real issue here and that we all need wisdom from God and His Spirit to do so is a thing we should all pray for daily - for ourselves and everyone else - more praying and less disagreeing I think is the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The words used is "divide," and it is used for a reason. The Bible you carry is already divided one time between the Old and New Testaments, so you have to believe in at least two dispensations or you need a different book. That's the basic principle, and it's a natural, basic, biblical principle. If you want to be reactionary against it that's on you.

Our pastor said it's wrongly dividing that verse to say it means we are to divide the Word into dispensations when God didn't see fit to do so. The Word is "divided" by God between the Old Covenant and New Covenant. There is no need to try and force more divisions.

There is nothing "reactionary" to holding to the Scripture, as did Spurgeon when he denounced the new theories of dispensationalism put forth by Darby as not being found in Scripture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
    • Razor went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      First Post
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...