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.

Where do we draw the line for IFB?


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't know if its a good idea to let them view where they cannot post. It might be better in the long run for them not to view it. As for me I would not want to read post that I cannot reply to, I would rather they be blocked off from my sight.

There has been a couple or so sly remarks about not being able to view all of the forum, it they are able to view it those remarks will probably be even slyer.

If I went to a RCC forum & they had areas for RCC members only, I would not feel left out. I feel that any group, weather its Baptist, Methodist, JW's, Pentecostal, Mormons, coC, or what ever names they chose to go by has ever right to have a section that's for members of that type of church.

Those who feel left out, those who get aggravated about this, are genearlly those that are trouble maker, & trying to spread what they believe hoping to make converts.


Turns out you had good insight into this problem/discussion we had. I stand corrected.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Jeremiah 36:32, "Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words."

I don't believe the King James editions have to match for them to all be perfect. In Jeremiah there were multiple editions of the same "originals" and they all varied. Typographical errors are a non-issue, I think we'd both agree on that.

Brother Seth,

Do you think someone is a borderline cultist for thinking that the Bible they hold in their hands is perfect? Did I get you right on that? Please clarify. Where is the perfect word of God, is there such a thing?

I'm not trying to argue or set a trap, these are honest questions.

I have never been able to answer if there was a "perfect word of God" before the KJV. Obviously there were the originals and they were perfect. But as far as what the KJV came from - it didn't come from "one perfect book," even though it is "one perfect book" now though. I know enough about manuscript evidence to know that the KJV not only came from the TR, but some parts of it rejected the TR and went with the Siniaticus and Vaticanus. Those are the corrupt manuscripts that all modern versions are based off of that we all soundly reject here.

So what do we do in that situation? Stick with the TR and reject the KJV or what? I know that situation is a rarety, and an in-house discussion among KJVO people, but it's still something to be considered. Where is the "one perfect book in Greek?" Honestly, is there such a thing? I don't know if there is or was at the time of the KJV translating.

By faith I trust what God has given me in the King James Bible and believe it to be perfect.

Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't know enough about foreign languages and their translations, but I've been told by solid Believers that there are sound translations in other languages. To be clear, that's not to say that all non-English translations are sound, some most certainly are not and there are some "better" than others, but from what I've been told by some who should know, there are at least some sound non-English translations of the Bible.


I agree. I was on the mission field for two years and used the KJV translation of the New Testament in Melanesian Pigin. I only knew of one place in it where it did not agree with the English KJV. It said we should confess our "sins" one to another, and our Bible says to confess our "faults." Big difference, obviously.

The idea that someone must learn a specific language to read the perfect word of God isn't a new idea. I do not believe that the perfect word of God is isolated only to English, but never forget, when the Bible was in Hebrew only you had to learn Hebrew if you wanted the word of God. When it was in the Greek originals, you had to learn Greek. I don't think you have to learn Hebrew, Greek, or English to have God's perfect word. I don't see any reason to think that God can't have it translated into other languages. That being said, I KNOW it's perfect in English, and so that's what I trust. If any other language disagrees, I stick with the English. Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't believe the King James editions have to match for them to all be perfect. In Jeremiah there were multiple editions of the same "originals" and they all varied. Typographical errors are a non-issue, I think we'd both agree on that.


Yes, we would both agree typographical errors are a non-issue.

Brother Seth,

Do you think someone is a borderline cultist for thinking that the Bible they hold in their hands is perfect? Did I get you right on that? Please clarify. Where is the perfect word of God, is there such a thing? I'm not trying to argue or set a trap, these are honest questions.


No, I think they are a borderline cultist for thinking the KJV was "re-inspired" rather than simply retaining existing inspiration by being a faithful translation of the already inspired word of God. If the KJV had truly had been re-inspired in 1611(or technically a bit earlier, during the translation process) further editions would not have been necessary.

Let me give you an example. Right now, as I sit here writing this I have two KJV bibles in my lap. One is a second edition rock of ages study bible and the other is a a Thomas nelson pocket bible.

When you open the rock of ages KJV bible to Joshua 19:2 says "And they had in their inheritance Beer-sheba, or Sheba, and Moladah,"

On the other hand the Thomas Neslon pocket bible when opened to the same verse says this: "And they had in their inheritance Beer-sheba, and Sheba, and Moladah,"

Now that is not just a spelling difference, that is a meaning difference albeit on a very minor issue. I will tell you that in my opinion that the rock of ages KJV has the correct reading. The question is this though, could you hold each KJV bible in your hands and say it is the perfect word of God in spite of a very small but real difference? If not you need to narrow down the definition of Gods perfect word a little more tightly than simply the "KJV". If you could accept both KJV bibles with that minor difference then I don't see why you would not accept the TR as equally valid. It is important to note that when comparing different editions of the the KJV, the TR, or most manuscripts in the "majority text" line there are some differences. The vast majority of them are going to non-issues. Spelling, punctuation, or a different word that still means the same thing. A very small number do change the meaning though. It should also be noted that the number of real differences is minuscule when compared to the vast number of both major and minor differences in the "critical text" line and the versions translated from them.


I know enough about manuscript evidence to know that the KJV not only came from the TR, but some parts of it rejected the TR and went with the Siniaticus and Vaticanus. Those are the corrupt manuscripts that all modern versions are based off of that we all soundly reject here.


I know enough about manuscript evidence to call you on that. :wink For one thing at the time the KJV was translated Sinaiticus wasn't even know beyond the monastery it was eventually discovered at in the 1800's, and while Vaticanus was known, it wasn't used. I would like to see you provide any evidence of where the KJV follows either of those two manuscripts more closely than the TR or the majority text.



So what do we do in that situation? Stick with the TR and reject the KJV or what?


Me personally, I don't have a problem with accepting both. I know their are a few small differences, but I also know the genuine differences are few and almost nothing when compared to the considerable differences in the critical text line. Edited by Seth-Doty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



I agree. I was on the mission field for two years and used the KJV translation of the New Testament in Melanesian Pigin. I only knew of one place in it where it did not agree with the English KJV. It said we should confess our "sins" one to another, and our Bible says to confess our "faults." Big difference, obviously.

The idea that someone must learn a specific language to read the perfect word of God isn't a new idea. I do not believe that the perfect word of God is isolated only to English, but never forget, when the Bible was in Hebrew only you had to learn Hebrew if you wanted the word of God. When it was in the Greek originals, you had to learn Greek. I don't think you have to learn Hebrew, Greek, or English to have God's perfect word. I don't see any reason to think that God can't have it translated into other languages. That being said, I KNOW it's perfect in English, and so that's what I trust. If any other language disagrees, I stick with the English.



This might be a bit off topic, but I would like to mention this. There are some of our fellow Baptist brothers & sister, along with some of the educated pastors, & many churches that has the name Baptist in the name of their church, that believes a man is not qualified to hold the office of pastor unless he holds a degree from a seminary & can read the Bible in the original languages.

I know of many pastors that would not meet that qualification including me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist




This might be a bit off topic, but I would like to mention this. There are some of our fellow Baptist brothers & sister, along with some of the educated pastors, & many churches that has the name Baptist in the name of their church, that believes a man is not qualified to hold the office of pastor unless he holds a degree from a seminary & can read the Bible in the original languages.

I know of many pastors that would not meet that qualification including me.



That is an area where I suspect we would all agree. Not only is it not a "necessary" qualification going to the "greek" is a frequently abused practice. If done carefully and properly it is no problem, indeed it can be an asset, but quite frequently it isn't done that way at all. Rather the greek word is misapplied or misunderstood in a passage and the preacher tells the congregation that "in the greek" the word "literally means" something totally different than what the real meaning of the passage is. Without thinking about it some preachers come across as engaging in bible correcting from the pulpit. When that type of preacher "goes to the greek" it tends to get them in trouble by making them think they know or see something "new" that they really don't. Edited by Seth-Doty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
There are some of our fellow Baptist brothers & sister, along with some of the educated pastors, & many churches that has the name Baptist in the name of their church, that believes a man is not qualified to hold the office of pastor unless he holds a degree from a seminary & can read the Bible in the original languages. I know of many pastors that would not meet that qualification including me.


And they would be completely wrong. Such requirements are nowhere in the Scriptures.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist




That is an area where I suspect we would all agree. Not only is it not a "necessary" qualification going to the "greek" is a frequently abused practice. If done carefully and properly it is no problem, indeed it can be an asset, but quite frequently it isn't done that way at all. Rather the greek word is misapplied or misunderstood in a passage and the preacher tells the congregation that "in the greek" the word "literally means" something totally different than what the real meaning of the passage is. Without thinking about it some preachers come across as engaging in bible correcting from the pulpit. When that type of preacher "goes to the greek" it tends to get them in trouble by making them think they know or see something "new" that they really don't.

Agreed. Sadly, I knew a man who was called of God to preach. He didn't have a degree, felt no calling to attain one, and the evidence of the Spirit being present and active in his ministry was there. This man began doing prison ministry, ministering in nursing homes and various other places as he awaited the Lord's further leading. Eventually several area pastors/churches became upset (jealous?) because of this mans ministry. Some of them confronted him and said unless he came under their authority, went to seminary, etc., he couldn't be preaching and teaching the Word. The man politely refused. The local pastors got together and went around to every place that man ministered and put pressure on the prison, nursing homes, etc., until they all dropped that man from being allowed to minister in those places because the local pastors had "informed" them this minister of the Gospel was sanctioned by them and didn't have a degree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


Agreed. Sadly, I knew a man who was called of God to preach. He didn't have a degree, felt no calling to attain one, and the evidence of the Spirit being present and active in his ministry was there. This man began doing prison ministry, ministering in nursing homes and various other places as he awaited the Lord's further leading. Eventually several area pastors/churches became upset (jealous?) because of this mans ministry. Some of them confronted him and said unless he came under their authority, went to seminary, etc., he couldn't be preaching and teaching the Word. The man politely refused. The local pastors got together and went around to every place that man ministered and put pressure on the prison, nursing homes, etc., until they all dropped that man from being allowed to minister in those places because the local pastors had "informed" them this minister of the Gospel was sanctioned by them and didn't have a degree.


Isnt it a good thing that Paul, Peter and any other preachers in the bible were not required to have a degree. I dont remember Jesus calling all of the disciples off the boat then taking them to the nearest Seminary school. I think that a preacher can preach and even lead a church with out a degree. I have never set under a preacher that used the old language bible, just the KJV. So to say that they have to read it would be like telling us we have be able to read it as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

Just a note, sissy - no degrees are mentioned per se in relation to Paul, Peter, etc. - but Paul was an exceptionally well educated man, speaking many languages and having sat at the feet of Gamaliel. Personally, I believe God chose the fishermen to show that uber education isn't important in order to be a follower of Christ, and that He chose Paul (and some others) to show that even the well educated have their place in His ministry.

...to say that they have to read it would be like telling us we have be able to read it as well.
So true! And those who cannot read the ancient languages would just have to trust what's being told them...just like people had to do before scripture was translated into the common tongue. Isn't it great to be able to read God's Word and let Him teach us directly, instead of having to rely on a man who may or may not be a megalomaniac?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Just a note, sissy - no degrees are mentioned per se in relation to Paul, Peter, etc. - but Paul was an exceptionally well educated man, speaking many languages and having sat at the feet of Gamaliel. Personally, I believe God chose the fishermen to show that uber education isn't important in order to be a follower of Christ, and that He chose Paul (and some others) to show that even the well educated have their place in His ministry.

So true! And those who cannot read the ancient languages would just have to trust what's being told them...just like people had to do before scripture was translated into the common tongue. Isn't it great to be able to read God's Word and let Him teach us directly, instead of having to rely on a man who may or may not be a megalomaniac?


Sort of like "narcissism" on steroids..

Theory*:
Could this be the driving force behind Calvinism? Men have always tried to make their god in their own image..........

Romans 1:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Good response Seth, I appreciate it! I'm not "anti-TR," but I'm always a little cautious when doubt is cast upon the KJB. As far as the manuscripts thing, I'll try and dig around and find that info that you "called me on." :) Brother Gipp has an excellent little book called Is Our English Bible Inspired, it's very good and there's certainly nothing radical in it like I've heard in this thread. He talks a lot about inspiration and preservation and how they work hand-in-hand. No where in the book is there a suggestion that the KJB was "re-inspired," but perhaps he says that the inspiration was preserved. I don't remember exactly.






Yes, we would both agree typographical errors are a non-issue.



No, I think they are a borderline cultist for thinking the KJV was "re-inspired" rather than simply retaining existing inspiration by being a faithful translation of the already inspired word of God. If the KJV had truly had been re-inspired in 1611(or technically a bit earlier, during the translation process) further editions would not have been necessary.

Let me give you an example. Right now, as I sit here writing this I have two KJV bibles in my lap. One is a second edition rock of ages study bible and the other is a a Thomas nelson pocket bible.

When you open the rock of ages KJV bible to Joshua 19:2 says "And they had in their inheritance Beer-sheba, or Sheba, and Moladah,"

On the other hand the Thomas Neslon pocket bible when opened to the same verse says this: "And they had in their inheritance Beer-sheba, and Sheba, and Moladah,"

Now that is not just a spelling difference, that is a meaning difference albeit on a very minor issue. I will tell you that in my opinion that the rock of ages KJV has the correct reading. The question is this though, could you hold each KJV bible in your hands and say it is the perfect word of God in spite of a very small but real difference? If not you need to narrow down the definition of Gods perfect word a little more tightly than simply the "KJV". If you could accept both KJV bibles with that minor difference then I don't see why you would not accept the TR as equally valid. It is important to note that when comparing different editions of the the KJV, the TR, or most manuscripts in the "majority text" line there are some differences. The vast majority of them are going to non-issues. Spelling, punctuation, or a different word that still means the same thing. A very small number do change the meaning though. It should also be noted that the number of real differences is minuscule when compared to the vast number of both major and minor differences in the "critical text" line and the versions translated from them.




I know enough about manuscript evidence to call you on that. :wink For one thing at the time the KJV was translated Sinaiticus wasn't even know beyond the monastery it was eventually discovered at in the 1800's, and while Vaticanus was known, it wasn't used. I would like to see you provide any evidence of where the KJV follows either of those two manuscripts more closely than the TR or the majority text.




Me personally, I don't have a problem with accepting both. I know their are a few small differences, but I also know the genuine differences are few and almost nothing when compared to the considerable differences in the critical text line.
Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I do not recall where it is in the Old Testament, yet there is some scriptures referring to schooling or studying in the Old Testament that some use to build the doctrine that pastors must have Bible degrees to be a pastor of a New Testament Church. I heard it spoken on one time by the president of a Baptist seminary. He did not come right out & say the pastor must have a degree, yet in a round about way he spoke it seemed to be his belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Okay Please help me out about the bible translations. I was born and raised on KJV. I dont know what the TR translation is. Is there a place somewere I can find out more about it? Is the TR translation in the original language?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

You know, this whole suggestion about the KJV being only 'primarily' translated from the KJV and partially translated from the corrupt manuscripts (Sinai, Vatican) is really bothering me. Because if the KJV was translated at all from the corrupt stream, it would be unreliable. To say such a thing really seems to cast doubt on our having any reliable translation in English at all! The KJV is reliable because it is based on the TR - end of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I was led to the KJB by the Holy Ghost. Since God directed me to put aside other translations and read the KJB that's what I did and what I continue to do. All the other issues and aspects, which I didn't even know about back then, are besides to the point to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 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...