Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      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.

Pastor Says Demons Inspired My Warnings Against West Coast


RSS Robot
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

:ot:

This topic is about David Cloud calling out a particular pastor. Please start another thread if you want to talk about God's divorce.


Oh sure, burn incense in one thread and then rain on the parade in another! :frog:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Page 95, last paragraph, The Right Path, Paul Chappell. You say, "Well, Brother Chappell, did you exegete the Scriptures to her and help her to understand the evils of gambling?" No, I prayed that she would keep on winning, because we were trying to buy property and build a church.

Yes, praying for blood money, thinking about building a church with blood money. Nope, cannot recommend him to anyone. Winning would be the worse thing, that would hook this woman on gambling even more. His mind was on money, coveting money, and he did not care how he got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Page 95, last paragraph, The Right Path, Paul Chappell. You say, "Well, Brother Chappell, did you exegete the Scriptures to her and help her to understand the evils of gambling?" No, I prayed that she would keep on winning, because we were trying to buy property and build a church.

Yes, praying for blood money, thinking about building a church with blood money. Nope, cannot recommend him to anyone. Winning would be the worse thing, that would hook this woman on gambling even more. His mind was on money, coveting money, and he did not care how he got it.


Wow! And this guy is supposed to be IFB???

This reminds me of a point that came up in Sunday school some time back. Our pastor related how he was once asked if he, or the church, would accept a million dollar donation if they knew it came from gambling. Our pastor stated that if the money was known to have come from gambling then no, the donation wouldn't be accepted. He went on to explain his biblical reasoning for this.

The person asking the question wasn't satisfied so they asked if our church would accept the donation from gambling money if we didn't know it came from gambling. Our pastor said yes, we would accept such a donation because we would have no reason at that point not to. He then went on to explain about conscience and other matters.

Anyway, as our pastor said, there are those who think donating a portion of their winnings to a church or some "worthy cause" excuses their gambling, but that's just not biblical.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I have read several of David Cloud's articles on Ruckman, and from memory, his main objection is that Ruckman teaches that the KJV is a new inspiration, being more correct than the original text. But it was a while ago that I read t and I may be wrong.

Edited by Invicta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have read several of David Cloud's articles on Ruckman, and from memory, his main objection is that Ruckman teaches that the KJV is a new inspiration, being more correct than the original text. But it was a while ago that I read t and I may be wrong.


There are several issues, but yes that is a major one. Ruckman teaches that the word of God was lost and then re-given and improved upon in the KJV. That is not so very different in some aspects from the mormon teaching that the bible and all Christianity was corrupted etc. until Joseph Smith cam along to "make things right". That gives a totally different meaning to KJVO and makes it a baseless and heretical position. Edited by Seth-Doty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Page 95, last paragraph, The Right Path, Paul Chappell. You say, "Well, Brother Chappell, did you exegete the Scriptures to her and help her to understand the evils of gambling?" No, I prayed that she would keep on winning, because we were trying to buy property and build a church.

Yes, praying for blood money, thinking about building a church with blood money. Nope, cannot recommend him to anyone. Winning would be the worse thing, that would hook this woman on gambling even more. His mind was on money, coveting money, and he did not care how he got it.


Ouch - he really said that? That's not good at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



Ouch - he really said that? That's not good at all.

The pages that were on the Google book site did not have this quoted, but the quote may have been on some following pages that it said were not available for preview. The context up to the point of the pages not available is not nearly as cut'n dried as some here would represent. If one reads the entire context (up until the missing pages) this pastor clearly knew that the ELDERLY woman had gotten saved late in life and it would take some patience, love and understanding in working with her as she had many life-long habits (sins actually) that God would need to deal with her concerning now that she was recently saved and came forward during an invitation.

I'd like to see the missing pages so that I can fully evaluate these claims, but I'm not paying $13 for those two pages. The pages missing are 95 and 96.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Page 95, last paragraph, The Right Path, Paul Chappell. You say, "Well, Brother Chappell, did you exegete the Scriptures to her and help her to understand the evils of gambling?" No, I prayed that she would keep on winning, because we were trying to buy property and build a church.

Yes, praying for blood money, thinking about building a church with blood money. Nope, cannot recommend him to anyone. Winning would be the worse thing, that would hook this woman on gambling even more. His mind was on money, coveting money, and he did not care how he got it.


Paul Chappell's willingness to take money from any and all sources has been a matter of public record for some time now; back in 2003 he accepted a grant from the ecumenical Louisville Institute.

http://www.louisville-institute.org/Grants/ggrantpast.aspx?id=6&year=2003

The Louisville Institute's mission statement is found at the link below. In a nutshell, they bring together leaders of American churches of every stripe (Protestant, Catholic, etc.) in order to come up with a vision for the future of Christianity in America. An interesting project for an IFB pastor to be taking part in (and accepting money from).

http://www.louisville-institute.org/About/purpose.aspx


There are many other churches in very close fellowship with Lancaster Baptist, and with Lancaster being the biggest player in this group, the others are likely to follow its lead. I am personally acquainted with one fairly large IFB church (about 500-600 members) that, like Lancaster, is now adopting "conservative" versions of popular CCM songs. I haven't read all of David Cloud's material regarding this as I'm already familiar with the situation, but this is probably one reason why he didn't approach Chappell personally; the issue affects more than just Chappell's home church. Edited by SoCal Baptist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



That's the first I've heard of that. Can you provide a source?


I am surprised you haven't heard that sort of thing, it is one of the main pillars of "ruckmanism". His own writings make his position rather clear. One of the most common questions ruckmanites tend to "ask" is "where was the word of God before 1611?". They ask this because they believe the pure word of God was lost and unknowable at some indefinite time prior to 1611 and then it was re-inspired in the english KJV at that point. Their belief that the pure word of God was corrupted, lost, and then re-inspired is key to their insistence that the bibles of other languages should be translated from the KJV into a given language rather than from greek and hebrew and is the reason for their general contempt for any scriptures in those languages. That is because they believe "only" the english KJV is the perfect pure word of God. That would differ from a more "typical" none ruckmanite KJVO IFB that would hold that the KJV is the preserved word of God for the english speaking peoples and nothing more. Not Gods new standard for the world circa 1611, but Gods old standard translated into english.

Here are just a couple quotes from his writings, I am sure if you looked you could find much more as he is always saying this sort of thing in one way or another. I have heard him say such things on his tapes myself and a quick internet search turns up many quotes like these with their sources if you care to check those out.


"The AV 1611 is far superior to any manuscript extant, and on occasion it would be superior to the original manuscripts if they could be produced."( Ruckman, Peter. Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians Commentary. 1973, 1980, p. 162)

“The A.V. 1611 reading, here, is superior to any Greek text” (Peter Ruckman, The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Pensacola Bible Press, 1970, p. 118)

“Mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation!” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 126).

“The King James test is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the universal language of the 20th century ... The truth is that God slammed the door of revelation shut in 389 BC and slammed it shut again in 1611” (Peter Ruckman, The Monarch of Books, Pensacola, 1973, p. 9)

There is a very good reason he is considered a blatant heretic by many and not IFB at all. If you want to discuss it further feel free to pm me as I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion of ruckman and will only make this one post on the subject on this thread. Edited by Seth-Doty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



I am surprised you haven't heard that sort of thing, it is one of the main pillars of "ruckmanism". His own writings make his position rather clear. One of the most common questions ruckmanites tend to "ask" is "where was the word of God before 1611?". They ask this because they believe the pure word of God was lost and unknowable at some indefinite time prior to 1611 and then it was re-inspired in the english KJV at that point. Their belief that the pure word of God was corrupted, lost, and then re-inspired is key to their insistence that the bibles of other languages should be translated from the KJV into a given language rather than from greek and hebrew and is the reason for their general contempt for any scriptures in those languages. That is because they believe "only" the english KJV is the perfect pure word of God. That would differ from a more "typical" none ruckmanite KJVO IFB that would hold that the KJV is the preserved word of God for the english speaking peoples and nothing more. Not Gods new standard for the world circa 1611, but Gods old standard translated into english.

Here are just a couple quotes from his writings, I am sure if you looked you could find much more as he is always saying this sort of thing in one way or another. I have heard him say such things on his tapes myself and a quick internet search turns up many quotes like these with their sources if you care to check those out.


"The AV 1611 is far superior to any manuscript extant, and on occasion it would be superior to the original manuscripts if they could be produced."( Ruckman, Peter. Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians Commentary. 1973, 1980, p. 162)

“The A.V. 1611 reading, here, is superior to any Greek text” (Peter Ruckman, The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Pensacola Bible Press, 1970, p. 118)

“Mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation!” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 126).

“The King James test is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the universal language of the 20th century ... The truth is that God slammed the door of revelation shut in 389 BC and slammed it shut again in 1611” (Peter Ruckman, The Monarch of Books, Pensacola, 1973, p. 9)

There is a very good reason he is considered a blatant heretic by many and not IFB at all. If you want to discuss it further feel free to pm me as I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion of ruckman and will only make this one post on the subject on this thread.


Seth,

That is all good and well; but it doesn't really matter if an individual is as crazy as a loon or a blatant heretic as long as they are 100% KJV and defend it to their death. If they do that, they must be alright and blessed of God! :icon_rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



I am surprised you haven't heard that sort of thing, it is one of the main pillars of "ruckmanism". His own writings make his position rather clear. One of the most common questions ruckmanites tend to "ask" is "where was the word of God before 1611?". They ask this because they believe the pure word of God was lost and unknowable at some indefinite time prior to 1611 and then it was re-inspired in the english KJV at that point. Their belief that the pure word of God was corrupted, lost, and then re-inspired is key to their insistence that the bibles of other languages should be translated from the KJV into a given language rather than from greek and hebrew and is the reason for their general contempt for any scriptures in those languages. That is because they believe "only" the english KJV is the perfect pure word of God. That would differ from a more "typical" none ruckmanite KJVO IFB that would hold that the KJV is the preserved word of God for the english speaking peoples and nothing more. Not Gods new standard for the world circa 1611, but Gods old standard translated into english.

Here are just a couple quotes from his writings, I am sure if you looked you could find much more as he is always saying this sort of thing in one way or another. I have heard him say such things on his tapes myself and a quick internet search turns up many quotes like these with their sources if you care to check those out.


"The AV 1611 is far superior to any manuscript extant, and on occasion it would be superior to the original manuscripts if they could be produced."( Ruckman, Peter. Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians Commentary. 1973, 1980, p. 162)

“The A.V. 1611 reading, here, is superior to any Greek text” (Peter Ruckman, The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Pensacola Bible Press, 1970, p. 118)

“Mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation!” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 126).

“The King James test is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the universal language of the 20th century ... The truth is that God slammed the door of revelation shut in 389 BC and slammed it shut again in 1611” (Peter Ruckman, The Monarch of Books, Pensacola, 1973, p. 9)

There is a very good reason he is considered a blatant heretic by many and not IFB at all. If you want to discuss it further feel free to pm me as I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion of ruckman and will only make this one post on the subject on this thread.


I'd be happy to discuss it further, privately. You said this publically however, so I'll respond to it publically.

Thanks for the sources; I think I better understand where you're coming from on this. I'm wondering though, how in the world does this make him a heretic, even if he is wrong? Being erronous and being a heretic are two completely different things, you know. No two believers believe the same things, so does that make the one who is wrong a heretic? Also, I highly doubt that anyone has all their ducks in a row, so does that make us all heretics? On salvation, baptism, the church, Baptist distinctives, the two natures, eschatology, the Godhead, the Holy Spirit, apostolic gifts, and a host of other things you probably agree with him on. So because YOU differ with him on the Bible issue - he's a heretic?

By the way, when the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text disagree with the King James Version - who do you correct?

The words in italics are not in the extant manuscripts, they were added by the KJV translators. Who do you pick, the KJV or not?


1. II Sam. 21:19, "And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

In other words, did David kill Goliath or did Elhanan do it? The MT says Elhanan did it, and so do many of the new versions, but the King James says that David did. Pick one.


2. I Cor. 14:4, "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church."

The TR doesn't have the word unknown in the text. In fact, every time the phrase "unknown tongue(s)" occurs in this chapter - it's not in the TR. The KJV has inserted the words and It COMPLETLY changes the meaning of the chapter. You have to pick one, you can't have both, either the TR or the KJV.


3. I John 2:23, "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

Half the verse is in italics - not in the original lanuages, not in the TR, but it's right there in the King James Bible. The KJV translators got that second half of the verse from the Vaticanus! You have to decide if you're going to with the TR or the KJV. Which do you correct?


4. Let me tell you which one PAUL would choose:

Deut 25:4: "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."

"The corn" is not in the Old Testament MT, but Paul wrote it in the New Testament when he quoted that OT verse. HE ADDED "the corn" as it is NOT in italics in the New Testament:

I Cor. 9:9, "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?"

Paul sides with the italics of the King James Version in Deuteronomy 25:4, against that of the extant MT.

I don't know anyone who says the KJV is "more the word of God" than the originals, but what we have today in Enlgish is better than we have today in the original languages. The originals do not exsist, only copies of copies of copies of them, and they disagree from each other.

Considering the KJV wasn't translated exclusively from the TR or the MT, is it erroneous? You can't pick both, brother, unless you stick your head in the sand about the facts. I'm not an expert on Manuscript Evidence, but I'm honest when I say I'm a King James man, I don't correct it - ever - and I never will. Where the KJV disagrees with the over 5,000 manuscripts different manuscripts, I go with the KJV. If the KJV is the perfect word of God, then THAT is what I translate from (which I have done) when going to another language.

And I won't call you a heretic if you don't agree. Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

When it comes right down to it, we either believe the KJB is the perfect Word of God in English, or we don't.

If the KJB is the perfect Word of God in English then this is true because God caused it to be so; whether by means we know or can know or are unable to know.

If the KJB is perfect, then any other Bible or manuscript that differs from the KJB must by definition be imperfect.

For myself, I believe the KJB is the perfect Word of God in English because the Lord Himself led me to specifically use the KJB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
If the KJB is perfect, then any other Bible or manuscript that differs from the KJB must by definition be imperfect.


Amen brother, you nailed it right there. :clapping:

You either believe it or you don't.
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

×
×
  • Create New...