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 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.


Amen, brother. Pseudo-scholars will always find ways to cast aspersions on the King James Bible. In the end, you either believe or you don't, you either have faith in what God gave you or you don't.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.


The KJB is reliable because that's what God gave us in our language today and it's proved itself to be reliable. You might want to be careful about the statement you made because you're saying that if it was translated from the corrupt stream "at all" it's not reliable.

Anywhere in the KJB that you see italics you're reading something that was added by the translators. Most of the time it is immaterial and is only there for readability, but sometimes it makes a difference. These are off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more examples:

1. In I Cor. 14 every time "tongue" is mentioned it's translated with the italicized word "unknown" right before. The word "unknown" wasn't there when they translated it, it was added. You either accept it or you don't, and it does make a difference in the meaning.

2. In I John 2:23 it says, "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." The entire second half of the verse was added and is not in the TR - that's why it's in italics. This part does agree with a corrupt text, but the fact of the matter is in this case the corrupt text was right and the TR was wrong. If that makes me a radical "whatever you want to call me" than fine, but I have faith in what God gave me today.

3. Here's an interesting one. In Duet. 25:4 your King James Old Testament says, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." The words "the corn" were not there at the time of translation from Hebrew to English! That's why it's in italics and that is why in several other versions it says "the grain" or something like that. So you are faced with a decision, you either trust what God gave you or you don't. If you trust what God gave you, then you turn to the New Testament and you see where Paul quotes that same passage in I Tim 5:18, "For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." NO ITALICS! Paul quotes the passage in Duet. 24:4 and he adds the words "the corn." That is an example of how God can clarify things (and He is mighty enough to do that, amen?) when He moves from one language to another in translation. It's not a matter of getting new doctrine and information, but it is a matter of preservation.

How we got the KJB is secondary, as John said. I don't understand all of this sort of stuff, but I don't have to, I believe the promise of preservation given me in Ps. 12:6-7! I'm just saying you don't want to get drug into those sort of conversations about a perfect Greek Text or sooner or later you'll get hit with something that will shake your faith on it (unless of course you're a Greek expert and you can decipher all this stuff and make it all work somehow, which I don't think most people can). I agree with Seth-Doty that you can take the TR and the KJB as both being the authority, but when push comes to shove you you either believe the book God placed in your hands or you don't. Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Anywhere in the KJB that you see italics you're reading something that was added by the translators. Most of the time it is immaterial and is only there for readability, but sometimes it makes a difference. These are off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more examples:

1. In I Cor. 14 every time "tongue" is mentioned it's translated with the italicized word "unknown" right before. The word "unknown" wasn't there when they translated it, it was added. You either accept it or you don't, and it does make a difference in the meaning.


The "unknown" in this case was added for clarity in our english language. Try to read the passage with the word "unknown" left out and see if it can make logical sense that way. It doesn't.




2. In I John 2:23 it says, "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." The entire second half of the verse was added and is not in the TR - that's why it's in italics. This part does agree with a corrupt text, but the fact of the matter is in this case the corrupt text was right and the TR was wrong.


This is a common passage used to attack the TR and your correct that the second part was not included in early editions of the TR. However it was found in some earlier english bibles, the later editions of beza's text and some of the greek texts as well, though not in the majority. It is inaccurate to say that the translators went with it because of the Alexandrian text line.



3. Here's an interesting one. In Duet. 25:4 your King James Old Testament says, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." The words "the corn" were not there at the time of translation from Hebrew to English! That's why it's in italics and that is why in several other versions it says "the grain" or something like that. So you are faced with a decision, you either trust what God gave you or you don't. If you trust what God gave you, then you turn to the New Testament and you see where Paul quotes that same passage in I Tim 5:18, "For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." NO ITALICS! Paul quotes the passage in Duet. 24:4 and he adds the words "the corn." That is an example of how God can clarify things (and He is mighty enough to do that, amen?) when He moves from one language to another in translation. It's not a matter of getting new doctrine and information, but it is a matter of preservation.


This one I don't really get your point. You do realize that "corn" in the KJV is used in the old english sense that just means grain don't you? It definitely does not mean "maize" or corn in the cob like what we would call corn these days. Generally in the bible it means wheat.

The OT passage without the italics would not be clear in english. "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out" might make sense in hebrew but does not make sense in english. "the corn" was added for clarity in english which is no doubt what paul did when quoting the verse in greek.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

On the I Cor. 14 point, I've seen people defend our interpritation of tongues by saying the word "unknown" shouldn't be there. You can read the entire chapter without the word, but like you said it does make more sense if you use "unknown." The word "unknown" in the text can be used (incorrectly of course) to support the satanic jibberish that Charasmatics do. I've seen well meaning Baptists defend against this by saying "unknown" shouldn't be there, which of course it should.

As far as I John 1:23, while it wasn't taken from the corrupt line it does agree with it. So you have a case here were some of the "good" Greek manuscripts agree and some of them do not. In the end, I believe it was settled with the KJB, as I do in all cases.

You're right, "corn of wheat," but what I was trying to point out was that Paul said something In Greek that wasn't in Hebrew, when he was "quoting" Hebrew. It happens all the time. Both are right, both are the word of God, but they are not the same. I believe if something in the KJB disagrees with something in Greek it's a similar situation, even though the KJB was not "God-breathed" like the originals were. But it is still the preserved word of God.

GREEK: Matthew 8:17, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses."

Vs.

HEBREW: Is. 53:4, "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This is the doctrinal statement that the churches I have joined use.

1. We believe that love one for another as Jesus loves the believer manifests our discipleship, proves our love for God and symbolizes our authority as New Testament churches. Love is therefore the great commandment of the LORD Jesus Christ upon which all others are dependent (Matt. 22:35-40; John 13:34, 35; John 15:12; 1 John 4:7-21; 1 John 5:1-3; Rev. 2:4, 5).

2. We believe in the infallible, verbal inspiration of the whole Bible and that the Bible is the all-sufficient rule of faith and practice (Psalm 119:160; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17).

3. We believe in the personal triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, equal in divine perfection (Matt. 28:19).

4. We believe in the Genesis account of Creation (Gen. 1; 2).

5. We believe that Satan is a fallen angel, the archenemy of God and man, the unholy god of this world, and that his destiny is the eternal lake of fire (Isa. 14:12-15; Ezek. 28:11-19; Matt. 25:41; 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 6:10-17; Rev. 20:10).

6. We believe in the virgin birth and sinless humanity of Jesus Christ (Matt. 1:18-20; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22).

7. We believe in the deity of Jesus Christ (John 10:30; John 1:1, 14; 2 Cor. 5:19).

8. We believe the Holy Spirit is the divine Administrator for Jesus Christ in His churches (Luke 24:49; John 14:16, 17; Acts 1:4, 5, 8; Acts 2:1-4).

9. We believe that miraculous spiritual manifestation gifts were done away when the Bible was completed. Faith, Hope and Love are the vital abiding Spiritual Gifts (1 Cor. chapters 12-14).

10. We believe that Man was created in the image of God and lived in innocency until he fell by voluntary transgression from his sinless state, the result being that all mankind are sinners (Gen. 1:26; Gen. 3:6-24; Rom. 5:12, 19).

11. We believe that the suffering and death of Jesus Christ was substitutionary for all mankind and is efficacious only to those who believe (Isa. 53:6; Heb. 2:9; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 Peter 3:18; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:2).
12. We believe in the bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ and the bodily resurrection of His saints (Matt. 28:1-7; Acts 1:9-11; 1 Cor. 15:42-58; 1 Thess. 4:13-18).

13. We believe in the premillennial, personal, bodily return of Christ as the crowning event of the Gentile age. This event will include the resurrection of the righteous to eternal heaven, and the Millennium will be followed by the resurrection of the unrighteous unto eternal punishment in the lake of fire and that the righteous shall enter into the heaven age (John 14:1-6; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 19; Rev. 20:4-6; Rev. 20:11-15; Rev. 21:8).

14. We believe that the depraved sinner is saved wholly by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and the requisites to regeneration are repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 13:3-5; John 3:16-18; Acts 20:21; Rom. 6:23; Eph. 2:8, 9), and that the Holy Spirit convicts sinners, regenerates, seals, secures, and indwells every believer (John 3:6; John 16:8, 9; Rom. 8:9-11; 1 Cor. 6:19, 20; Eph. 4:30; Titus 3:5).

15. We believe that all who trust Jesus Christ for salvation are eternally secure in Him and shall not perish (John 3:36; John 5:24; John 10:27-30; Rom. 8:35-39; Heb. 10:39; 1 Peter 1:5).

16. We believe that God deals with believers as His children, that He chastises the disobedient, and that He rewards the obedient (Matt. 16:27; Matt. 25:14-23; John 1:12; Heb. 12:5-11; 2 John 8; Rev. 22:12).

17. We believe that Jesus Christ established His church during His ministry on earth and that it is always a local, visible assembly of scripturally baptized believers in covenant relationship to carry out the Commission of the Lord Jesus Christ, and each church is an independent, self-governing body, and no other ecclesiastical body may exercise authority over it. We believe that Jesus Christ gave the Great Commission to the New Testament churches only, and that He promised the perpetuity of His churches (Matt. 4:18-22; Matt. 16:18; Matt. 28:19, 20; Mark 1:14-20; John 1:35-51; Eph. 3:21).

18. We believe that there are two pictorial ordinances in the Lord's churches: Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Scriptural baptism is the immersion of penitent believers in water, administered by the authority of a New Testament church in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Lord's Supper is a memorial ordinance, restricted to the members of the church observing the ordinance (Matt. 28:19, 20; Acts 8:12, 38; Rom. 6:4; 1 Cor. 5:11-13; 1 Cor. 11:1, 2, 17-20, 26).

19. We believe that there are two divinely appointed offices in a church, pastors and deacons, to be filled by men whose qualifications are set forth in Titus and 1 Timothy.

20. We believe that all associations, fellowships, and committees are, and properly should be, servants of, and under control of the churches (Matt. 20:25-28).

21. We believe in freedom of worship without interference from the government and affirm our belief in civil obedience, unless the laws and regulations of civil government run contrary to the Holy Scriptures (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-15).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I.    Baptists believe that the Bible is the sole authority for faith and practice!



II.      Baptists believe that the church is to be independent and self-governing!



III.    Baptists believe that the membership must be born again!



IV.    Baptists believe that baptism must be by immersion!



V.      Baptists in a priesthood of believers.



VI.    Baptists believe in soul liberty,  meaning that we are free to worship God as our conscience dictates.



    VII.    Baptists believe in a separation of church and state meaning that the state is not allowed to interfere with the operation and
      function of the church.

 

KJV only & salvation is Grace through faith, not election.  In plain English no Doctrines of Grace, Calvinism or whatever you want to label this heresy.

 

My 2 Cents  :coffee2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This topic needs reconsidering for people posting. Maybe only IFB church members only can post. If others have questions we already have the Questions forum or area for asking an IFB any question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

True, a good example is this topic here, where a member is tearing down the good old KJ Bible. And espousing false doctrine on other topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Maybe first off the line should be IFB...if they do not designate themselves to be IFB then the denial is at the very beginning...whether lounge or any other part of the site what is doctrinally believed come out in their writing...

It really depends on your purpose for this site...go back and look at your initial purpose for this site...have you moved from that purpose have you added or redefined your purpose?

I am not going to an IFB because there is not one where I live, but of the choices that is had the one I am a member is the closest Baptist church to it...

I will say though if your purpose is IFB church goers I would sacrifice the fellowship for the sake of your pupose because of and for the purity of truth to those young IFBer's whose beliefs are growing and need not be brought into cofusion what can be read by those whose beliefs are not fundamental...does that make sense?

My imput...
Deborah

Job Opening! (hint hint for anyone that lives in that area)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

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.

2 Kings 22:14

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

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.

There's no partial translation from those manuscripts. There are a few Latin manuscripts that were in existence around the first century, and others from Byzantine that were reliable, but in which the corrupt manuscripts borrowed from. Thus when KJV critics attack the KJV they accuse them of using LXX or A, B manuscripts simply because the corrupt text had a similar reading as one in the KJV.

 

__________________

 

And to limit inspiration to the originals I believe is equally erroneous. Why make the distinction? Making the distinction gives the impression that original documents were/are more accurate and reliable than future translations and the NT itself contained numerous translations that Jesus and the apostles quoted from. In Revelation 1, John wrote 7 letters to the seven churches in Asia, which one was the "inspired original"? We can't say "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God" and then claim that inspiration was limited to the "originals" which don't exist. Either inspiration includes what we have now, or we don't have the words of God that He said will never pass away.

 

If inspiration did not include future writings, then explain how inspiration would apply to Revelation since Paul's comment in 2 Timothy 3:16 was written before Revelation.

 

:hijacked: sorry, pet peave of mine when I hear "only in the original" comments.

 

:11backtotopic:

Edited by Dr James Ach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Dr James Ach, what does your last 3 post have to do with the topic, Where do we draw the line for IFB?

 

 

And why take a quote form a post I made in another topic & post it here when it has not one single thing to do with the topic at hand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Dr James Ach, what does your last 3 post have to do with the topic, Where do we draw the line for IFB?
 
 
andAnd why take a quote form a post I made in another topic & post it here when it has not one single thing to do with the topic at hand?

Are you drinking again? Paul said use a LITTLE wine for thy stomach's sake, you must have several ulcers :)
 
One response was to thread #49 by Salyan.and within that was a response to several others discussing the KJV issue. Even Bro Matt commented on that issue in post #59 WHICH YOU LIKED.

 

My response quoting 2 Kings was in fact in this thread (I have no idea why you asked "why take a quote from a post I made in another topic" when it is post #73 in THIS THREAD. It was answering where the "college" was in the OT)
 
And finally, on post #65, you started out admitting that your comment was off topic.

 

SO to sum this up:

 

* You asked about a conversation I had out of context when everyone else had the same conversation and you even liked some of the comments on it, but when I do it I get the 3rd degree.

 

* You erroneously stated that I quoted a post you made and I showed you that it in fact is on this thread.

 

* You rake me over the coals for answering a question that you asked about schools in the OT

 

* Then you ask me what my posts have to do with the topic when you had one of your own threads that begin by saying "I know this may be off topic".

 

Lay of the liquor and monitor the Nyquil a little bit.

 

And PS, I haven't said much about the topic because several other people have written some fantastic ideas and really nothing I can improve on, so it was my turn to be quiet.

Edited by Dr James Ach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 And is what Bro. Matt means in the very 1st post.

 

"I think that this board is IFB and therefore those who are not, should be limited. There is a board that i used to belong to that would allow non-baptists to join, but you could only post in a couple forums. I don't post there anymore as they have gone very liberal 

 

 

Where to draw the line of who post on this forum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

James - opening comment is unnecessary and a little unkind.

It's called humor, it wasn't meant to be serious. But I'm a little sick of getting fired on about petty stuff. Good night I posted a single Bible verse as a post and can't even do that without Jerry's big mouth. He gets away with slandering anyone he doesn't agree with and then turns around and tells others they are not acting Christ-like. 

 

I would simply block him but he was more than one account on here so I have no idea how many other accounts he may have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Oh snapple drink, I forgot to respond to the statement about my post not being directly related to the OP (even though I thought I explained it already) so here goes again; I'll be more specific this time:

 

Just because I went to law school and Bible college doesn't mean that there are not equally intelligent people on here, I do not need to have the preeminence and validate my "credentials" by offering 20,000 posts on every subject on the forum. I have visited homeless shelters and prisons with people that have read the Bible their entire lives that know it probably just as well if not better than I do. Sometimes I simply like to "listen" and see what someone else has to say.

 

That being said, there were several people here that posted very good ideas and I did not feel that I could offer anything different nor improve upon what had already  been mentioned, and frankly, their ideas were simply better than mine. Therefore I posted responses to the things I could answer.

 

So excuse me if I failed to wash my hands before I ate, and I'll try not to eat meat in your presence anymore.

Edited by Dr James Ach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have noticed that any subject we all agree on causes little discussion. I post on 4 sites. Two of them disagree on many subjects such as pre tribulation rapture. The more they argue the more I can explain. They make sure that I am very clear. There are understandings on prophecy that God told Daniel we would not understand till the end so there is still prophecy to learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 1 Anonymous, 8 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

    • Razor earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • 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
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • 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...