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.

The Gap (Daniel 11:33-35)


LindaR

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

No matter you cut it, there is still a "gap." If in fact the preterist view is correct, how do we get from 33 AD to 70 AD without a GAP???? Ian says it is a "continuation of time."
It is nothing of the sort. The text of Daniel 9 says NOTHING about a "continuation of time." It says it would be 70 weeks. 33 AD to 70 AD is more than a "week" no matter how you cut it.

THERE IS A GAP no matter what side you take on this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

God predestined to allow the fall. Adam was the only man who had an innocent neutral free will, the rest of us are born with a sinful and therefore not free nature. In Adam we all chose sin. The fall was an example of where man's free choice leads given the temptation and without God's intervention - sin. So God did predestine to allow the fall (He could have easily prevented it) but He did not make Adam do it. Adam did it by his own free will. It is because free will does not lead to God; only His grace does.


anime, does this mean you do not witness to those who have not received Christ as their Savior?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

WHENCE CAME THIS MODERN SYSTEM? (Dispensationalism)
As regards the origin of the system: the beginnings thereof and its leading features are found in the writings of those known as "Brethren" (sometimes called "Plymouth Brethren," from the name of the English city where the movement first attracted attention); though it is but fair to state that the best known and most spiritual leaders of that movement — - as Darby, Kelly, Newberry, Chapman, Mueller and others, "whose names are in the Book of Life" — - never held the "Jewish" character of the kingdom preached by our Lord and John the Baptist, or the "Jewish" character of the gospels (especially Matthew), or that the Sermon on the Mount is "law and not grace" and pertains to a future "Jewish" Kingdom............


STuff and nonsense.
1. THe Jews RULERS (priests, Pharisees, Saducees, Lawyers, etc. at al) for the most part did NOT believe what we are teaching. If they did, they would have accepted Jesus Christ as their Messiah.
2. The Jewish PEOPLE had every RIGHT to believe in a "Jewish" Kingdom with a resurrected David on the Throne and the Messiah bringing deliverance from their captors SINCE THE OT IS FILLED WITH SUCH PROMISES.
3. This same old argument about Darby, Scofield, etc. is simply NOT TRUE. "Church" history is NOT the History of the local, NT, Bible-Believing saints for the last 2,000 years, but rather the history of the "big shots" and their stupidity. Augustine is about as good a "saint" as Pope Benedict the (whatever number he is.) We really don't get an accurate picture of the theology of the REAL Bible-Believing saints because they were so viciously hunted and persecuted by the standing order STate-Churches. The writings and sermons of the REAL Bible-Believers were burned and destroyed right along with them - up to and including their own PERSONAL correspondence.
So to say that Dispensationalism is a "recent" invention is in fact a LIE. The few scant records we do have from the REAL BIble-Believing Christians indicate that they were Baptistic in their church governance and observance of ordinances, and that a good number of them had a basic understanding of what we would now call "dispensationalism."
Once religious freedom began to roll along, THEN we could start writing. So what Darby really did was systematize and commit to writing what many others had believed for centuries! Those former saints simply did not have money or means to write and distribute what they believed. They were too busy making a living (since they were noted for being poor!), and hiding from their persecutors.

I could just as easily make the case that this preterist - allegorical - post-trib/a-mill or whatever nonsense had its origin with the old heretic and Bible corrector Origen. Augustine then picked up the mantle, and it was carried over by Calvin, Henry, and the Wesleys. But notice - NONE OF THESE MEN ARE BAPTISTS.

So lets stop the ad hominem arguments, and discuss the IDEAS from a Scriptural perspective.

WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURES???
Link to comment
Share on other sites




anime, does this mean you do not witness to those who have not received Christ as their Savior?


I don't see where you got that. I do witness.

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? - Romans 10:14-15a
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


STuff and nonsense.
1. THe Jews RULERS (priests, Pharisees, Saducees, Lawyers, etc. at al) for the most part did NOT believe what we are teaching. If they did, they would have accepted Jesus Christ as their Messiah.
2. The Jewish PEOPLE had every RIGHT to believe in a "Jewish" Kingdom with a resurrected David on the Throne and the Messiah bringing deliverance from their captors SINCE THE OT IS FILLED WITH SUCH PROMISES.
3. This same old argument about Darby, Scofield, etc. is simply NOT TRUE. "Church" history is NOT the History of the local, NT, Bible-Believing saints for the last 2,000 years, but rather the history of the "big shots" and their stupidity. Augustine is about as good a "saint" as Pope Benedict the (whatever number he is.) We really don't get an accurate picture of the theology of the REAL Bible-Believing saints because they were so viciously hunted and persecuted by the standing order STate-Churches. The writings and sermons of the REAL Bible-Believers were burned and destroyed right along with them - up to and including their own PERSONAL correspondence.
So to say that Dispensationalism is a "recent" invention is in fact a LIE. The few scant records we do have from the REAL BIble-Believing Christians indicate that they were Baptistic in their church governance and observance of ordinances, and that a good number of them had a basic understanding of what we would now call "dispensationalism."
Once religious freedom began to roll along, THEN we could start writing. So what Darby really did was systematize and commit to writing what many others had believed for centuries! Those former saints simply did not have money or means to write and distribute what they believed. They were too busy making a living (since they were noted for being poor!), and hiding from their persecutors.

I could just as easily make the case that this preterist - allegorical - post-trib/a-mill or whatever nonsense had its origin with the old heretic and Bible corrector Origen. Augustine then picked up the mantle, and it was carried over by Calvin, Henry, and the Wesleys. But notice - NONE OF THESE MEN ARE BAPTISTS.

So lets stop the ad hominem arguments, and discuss the IDEAS from a Scriptural perspective.

WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURES???

Spurgeon was Baptist and he spoke out strongly against what he said was the new and unbiblical teachings of Darby.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


Spurgeon was Baptist and he spoke out strongly against what he said was the new and unbiblical teachings of Darby.

Appeal to man....
Maybe all the men who are trying the "historical" argument to disprove dispensationalism are wrong.
Maybe Spurgeon was wrong on this point.

Here is the inconsistency. Those who promote this "historical" argument against dispensationalism are left with this preterist/allegorical system that was promoted and used by the ancient HERETICS such as Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine. Therefore, based on your own criteria, we should dismiss your theory.

But where does this leave us? Does this "historical" argument really answer the questions?

NO!

WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
& slightly edited:

As I understand it from intertestamental history, Daniel's prophecy is so accurate with regard to the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes & subsequently Herod, & the struggle of the Maccabees, that they have accused him of recording that history rather than prophesying it. Inserting 2,000 years of predestined persecution, justified by a supposed gap, is adding to Scripture. Bear in mind the Jews have not got that KJV colon to reassure them that their 2,000 years of suffering is the will of God.


Don't you folk see that you are justifying millennia of persecution of the Jews by your additions to Holy Scripture? God's purpose is taught by Paul:
28
As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

29
For the gifts and calling of God are without repe
nt
ance.

30
For as ye in times past have n
ot
believed God, yet have now
ob
tained mercy through their unbelief:

31
Even so have these also now n
ot
believed, that through your mercy they also may
ob
tain mercy.

32
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

33
O the depth of the riches b
ot
h of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgme
nt
s, and his ways past finding out!


Is Paul teaching that the Jews are rejected by God throughout the Gospel age? God forbid! They are saved by the Gospel - the same Gospel that saves us - & Paul himself.

The teaching of the OP is blatantly anti-semitic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Ian, it was God that said "blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." You know that no one here said that Jews can't get saved, we've been through that before. The nation as a whole has been set aside.

The abomination of desolation either occurred in 70 A.D. or will sometime in the future. Either way, both sides have a gap to explain whether you want to admit it or not. We're open about it, you like to hide it.

When pinned to the mat the non-dispensationalist will always change the subject by muttering things about Darby and Scofield or mischaracterizing our position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Ian, it was God that said "blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." You know that no one here said that Jews can't get saved, we've been through that before. The nation as a whole has been set aside.

The abomination of desolation either occurred in 70 A.D. or will sometime in the future. Either way, both sides have a gap to explain whether you want to admit it or not. We're open about it, you like to hide it.

When pinned to the mat the non-dispensationalist will always change the subject by muttering things about Darby and Scofield or mischaracterizing our position.

When did the fulness of the Gentiles be come in ? Are we still waiting, or was it when the Gospel was opened wide to the Gentiles? Every racial group has been & is blind in part. I don't think any of us believe that we will see fulness in the sense of 100% salvation of either Gentile or Israel before Jesus returns. (Whether millennium (which isn't 100% salvation) or NH&NE (which is.))

Is this what Paul means?
24
And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed n
ot
.

25
And when they agreed n
ot
among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet u
nt
o our fathers,

26
Saying, Go u
nt
o this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall n
ot
understand; and seeing ye shall see, and n
ot
perceive:

27
For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

28
Be it known therefore u
nt
o you, that the salvation of God is se
nt
u
nt
o the Ge
nt
iles, and that they will hear it.

29
And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.


Remember that Paul has also written:
11
I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come u
nt
o the Ge
nt
iles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

12
Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Ge
nt
iles; how much more their fulness?


Does he mean the Gospel going out to all nations, including Jews after AD 70, or some distant future. He did write:
8
Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made u
nt
o the fathers:

9
And that the Ge
nt
iles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Ge
nt
iles, and sing u
nt
o thy name.

10
And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Ge
nt
iles, with his people.

11
And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Ge
nt
iles; and laud him, all ye people.

12
And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a ro
ot
of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Ge
nt
iles; in him shall the Ge
nt
iles trust.



25
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

26
But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandme
nt
of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the
ob
edience of faith:

27
To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.


Peter declared, after Pentecost:
25
Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covena
nt
which God made with our fathers, saying u
nt
o Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

26
U
nt
o you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, se
nt
him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.


The OP & those who consider the Gospel age a gap in God's dealings with Israel are in serious error - & antisemitic in their thinking. God no longer considers Israel as a nation to be a special people, but Jews are certainly not in any way excluded. They with us comprise a holy nation, & very special to God:
5
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

6
Wherefore also it is co
nt
ained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall n
ot
be confounded.

7
U
nt
o you therefore which believe he is precious: but u
nt
o them which be dis
ob
edie
nt
, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

8
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being dis
ob
edie
nt
: whereu
nt
o also they were appoi
nt
ed.

9
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness i
nt
o his marvellous light;

10
Which in time past were n
ot
a people, but are now the people of God: which had n
ot
ob
tained mercy, but now have
ob
tained mercy.


God has never changed, & this is a wonderful promise:

16
Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to an
ot
her: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name.

17
And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.

18
Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him n
ot
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Let’s not change the subject: we've already been through all of that, Romans 9 and 11 make it clear that God is not through with Israel as a nation.

Are you willing to admit that the system you adhere to creates a gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th week? Or how do you reconcile the Messiah being crucified half way through the 70th week only to have the abomination of desolation occurring 40 years later? That seems like a very long week to me. Kinda like the week where everyone has to go back to work from Christmas vacation or something.

Your system self-destructs when put to the test. The weeks in Daniel are supposed to be seven years long. The only way you can make it work is to remove the Abomination of Desolation from the 70th week, but anyone reading the text can clearly see that it is included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Also for Rick.


No matter you cut it, there is still a "gap." If in fact the preterist view is correct, how do we get from 33 AD to 70 AD without a GAP???? Ian says it is a "continuation of time."
It is nothing of the sort. The text of Daniel 9 says NOTHING about a "continuation of time." It says it would be 70 weeks. 33 AD to 70 AD is more than a "week" no matter how you cut it.

THERE IS A GAP no matter what side you take on this!

Please refer to Dan. 9. The point you are making completely misses the fact that Gabriel says nothing about events during the 68th week, when, if the crucifixion takes place after 69 weeks & before the 70th week Jesus ministry is taking place. Everything is ready for Messiah to begin his ministry after threescore and two weeks. The building, etc, takes place during those 7 & 62 weeks, & all is set for Messiah's ministry of redemption - beginning with his baptism & anointing by the Holy Spirit, even the prophecy that after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off. Further, that cutting off is the final effective sacrifice so Gabriel can say: in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.

A lot of things happen after threescore and two weeks but after threescore and two weeks does not necessarily mean during the 70th week. Obviously the formal sacrifices are finished when Messiah is cut off, even though they continue for a generation. Also Jesus shall confirm the covenant with many for one week which is during his earthly ministry & during the early apostolic preaching. The 70th week ends around the time of Stephen & Cornelius. Stephen declares the unbelieving Jews uncircumcised, while Peter welcomes the uncircumcised Cornelius by the Gospel.

Are the other prophesied events necessarily during the 70th week? They takes place after threescore and two weeks, & is a consequence of the rejection of the Messiah, but not necessarily during the 70th week.
the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and u
nt
o the end of the war desolations are determined.

Jesus prophesied that against this generation. Those who reject the wonderful salvation declared in v. 24 will suffer the prophesied desolation.

No need for a gap, the saving work was finished, the Gospel proclaimed, the old covenant rituals ended. God graciously allowed a full generation to live under the sound of the Gospel before he carried out the sentence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Let’s not change the subject: we've already been through all of that, Romans 9 and 11 make it clear that God is not through with Israel as a nation.

Rick - the whole point of the thread - & the video link - is the predestined persecution of the Jews during the GAP in God's dealings with Israel during the so-called "church age." Many days so far nearly 2,000 years of persecution resulting from a colon, and without Jesus reassurance.
: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil,
many
days.



33
These things I have spoken u
nt
o you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.


Israel as a people are blessed, not Israel as a nation. Show me otherwise from the NT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member


Appeal to man....
Maybe all the men who are trying the "historical" argument to disprove dispensationalism are wrong.
Maybe Spurgeon was wrong on this point.

Here is the inconsistency. Those who promote this "historical" argument against dispensationalism are left with this preterist/allegorical system that was promoted and used by the ancient HERETICS such as Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine. Therefore, based on your own criteria, we should dismiss your theory.

But where does this leave us? Does this "historical" argument really answer the questions?

NO!

WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE?


Darby was an Irish high church man. These days he would be called an Anglo Catholic. he was or pretended to be an extreme Calvinist. He once wrote that a tract he wrote in oxford, defending the Calvinist view was the only tract that made him money. B.W. Newton thought it was too extreme and a modest defence of Calvinism would have been better. That would suggest to me that Darby was either not a Calvinst or had not developed his dispensationalist theories as you cannot believe the Doctrines of Grace and Dispensationalism as they are diametrically opposed. Although some try. Darby picked up a Jesuit teaching and developed it. Dispensationalism has never been a baptist teaching. B.W. Newton thought that Darby was sent to Oxford to spy on the evangelicals by the papists, and said that he had read nothing in Darby's writings that a papist could not have written. Newton became a Baptist, Darby became the pope of the Brethren.

What saith the scriptures? or we may add, what don't they say?

Well they certainly do not, in Daniel 9, mention an antichrist, do not mention a gap, do not say a covenant will be made, nor a covenant will be broken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Ah, ah, ah, not so fast.

Let's look again at Dan. 9:27, "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”

In the middle of the week you have the sacrifice stopping and the abomination of desolation occurring. They happen at the same time! You can't do anything about it, it’s right there in the text and it’s very clear that they happen together.

Now if you're right, then Christ was crucified in the middle of the 70th week, the animal sacrifices become of no effect, and then we wait another 40 years for the abomination of desolation to happen in 70 A.D. Not only does this not work when you consider every week is supposed to be seven years long, but these events happen in the middle of the week together. That could mean your week would be very long. In fact, if we’re to take the Scripture as how they are written, and force your system of interpretation upon them, then that would mean the middle of the week would consist of a 40 year period. That would mean the entire week would have to be seven periods of 40 years equaling 280 years! This is why you force the abomination of desolation out of the text because it doesn't fit your system. Too bad brother, it's right there and it is part of the week whether you like it or not.

Here's the other alternative:

The 70th week is separated in the text from the other 69 weeks because it is unique. All 70 weeks tie in directly to Israel and her accepting the Messiah, and verse 24 describes what will happen to the nation once all 70 weeks are complete. Daniel has just finished praying one of the most sincere and heartfelt prayers about his nation ever recorded in Scripture. He is begging for forgiveness for his Israel, and God answers by sending Gabriel with a message about the future of his people. Gabriel tells Daniel about the 70 weeks of years and what will happen to his nation in stunning detail.

After 69 weeks the Messiah will be cut off. After describing the events before the 70th week begins, the end of verse 26 mentions a very interesting character and speaks of the 70 A.D. destruction. This character is "the prince that shall come." The people of this prince will destroy Jerusalem, and we see from history those people are Romans. The coming prince (where have I heard that before?) therefore is Roman as well, and he is spoken of in the next verse.

This coming prince confirms the covenant with the nation of Israel and many other people. In the middle of the week he stops the sacrifices and commits the abomination of desolation spoken of by Jesus (Matthew 24) and Paul (II Thess. 2:4). He is the little horn, the Beast, and the Antichrist, the head of the Babylon of Revelation. His position as head of Rome was revealed in the first century to Bible believers (II Thess. 2:3) and Christians have been calling the head of pagan Rome and religious Rome antichrist ever since. Just as there are many devils and one Devil, so too are there many antichrists and one Antichrist. The future Antichrist will top them all and when he is revealed to be the son of perdition (double application II Thess. 2:3 again). He'll do it by walking into the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem (Rev. 11) along with an image of the Beast that actually speaks (Rev. 13), and will declare himself to be God. If a Jew understands anything it's that you don't worship an image, and the ones who can will flee to the place prepared for them in the wilderness by God (Matthew 24, Rev 12).

This week is a seven year period, just like all the rest, and it has to do with the nation of Israel, just like all the other weeks do. To recap, it has the prince that shall come confirming a covenant with many people, the sacrifices will stop when he breaks the covenant (Is. 28:14-15, 18; 33:8, Ps. 55:20-21), and lastly he commits the abomination of desolation in the temple by declaring himself to be God (II Thess. 2:3-12). The book of Revelation tells the rest of the story.

The 70th week is separated from the other weeks in the passage because it is very unique and ties in directly to the Second Advent. Jesus said His Second Coming could happen at any time, and so too this week could begin at any time as well - neither are set in stone, but he said that the generation that sees the beginning of these things will see the end of them as well. The reason the week has not happened is because Israel as a nation repeatedly rejected her Messiah after His crucifixion and became partially blinded to the gospel while God worked with the Gentiles (Rom. 9, 11, Acts 7, 13:46, 28:28). For the events that are described to happen after the 70 weeks to occur, Israel must accept her Messiah. The Tribulation events of Matthew 24 and Revelation all happen within these 7 years and are part and parcel to bringing Israel back to God. Signs and wonders were God's standard operating procedure for dealing with Israel during the Old Testament as well as the time of Christ and the apostles, and it will be the same way again during the Tribulation.


Daniel 9:24-27, “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

25) Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

26) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”


Ps. 55:20, “He hath put forth his hands against such as be at peace with him: he hath broken his covenant.
21) The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords.


II Thess. 2:3-12, “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4) Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5) Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6) And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7) For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8) And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9) Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10) And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11) And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12) That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

A very interesting interpretation but involves a lot of misinterpreting scripture.

Earlier I posted scriptures to show that the 69 weeks expired with the baptism of Jesus. If anyone posted scripture to show I was wrong, I missed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

A very interesting interpretation but involves a lot of misinterpreting scripture.

Earlier I posted scriptures to show that the 69 weeks expired with the baptism of Jesus. If anyone posted scripture to show I was wrong, I missed it.


You must have missed this then from an earlier post:

"Let's look again at Dan. 9:27, "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”

In the middle of the week you have the sacrifice stopping and the abomination of desolation occurring. They happen at the same time! You can't do anything about it, it’s right there in the text and it’s very clear that they happen together.

Now if you're right, then Christ was crucified in the middle of the 70th week, the animal sacrifices become of no effect, and then we wait another 40 years for the abomination of desolation to happen in 70 A.D. Not only does this not work when you consider every week is supposed to be seven years long, but these events happen in the middle of the week together. That could mean your week would be very long. In fact, if we’re to take the Scripture as how they are written, and force your system of interpretation upon them, then that would mean the middle of the week would consist of a 40 year period. That would mean the entire week would have to be seven periods of 40 years equaling 280 years! This is why you force the abomination of desolation out of the text because it doesn't fit your system. Too bad brother, it's right there and it is part of the week whether you like it or not."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

It is clear from Dan. 9 that everything happens AFTER the 69th week, during or after the 70th week. Only the rebuilding takes place during the previous 69 weeks.

It is also clear that THE covenant is confirmed, not made & NOT broken. That is the blood of the everlasting covenant AKA the new covenant in Jesus' blood. He confirmed the covenant by his ministry & the Apostolic Gospel.

In the middle of week 70, after the 69th week Jesus refers to the abomination, which Luke asserts is the besieging armies:

15
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

16
Then let them which be in Judaea flee i
nt
o the mou
nt
ains:


20
And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

21
Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mou
nt
ains;


Jesus had every right to implement the prophesied destruction in the middle of the 70th week when the Jews rejected & crucified him. Also at the end of the 70th week when the Jewish leaders formally rejected the Holy Spirit speaking through Stephen. He graciously did not, though the judgment of that generation became inevitable, apart from national repentance - as occurred with Nineveh. In fact there was large-scale repentance of many thousands of Jews, & their presence delayed the destruction - as in the days of Lot. See also Rev. 7, & the sealing of the 144,000, & 2 Thes. 2, where the destruction is delayed by the "withholders" presumably the presence of the Jerusalem church.

Jonah was angry with God for not implementing his 40 day destruction message. Likewise YOU accuse God of making a false prophecy because he graciously delays judgment. In any case, it still was to take place AFTER 69 weeks. Rather than admit your misinterpretation, you invent a totally different scenario. You have to interpret - why don't you believe what is written, with the NT explaining & fulfilling the OT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The "and" separates it. It is a result of the Jews rejecting Christ's sacrifice. You still haven't shown that the 69 weeks could have ended at any other time than Christ's baptism when He was declared "My Son", "The lamb of God", "The Messias" He said, "The time is fulfilled" and "I am He." What other scripture proof do you need.

He was the "Most Holy" which was to be annointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I do believe what was written. The abomination of desolation takes place during the 70th week.

You keep trying to take it out of there.

The OP claims that a colon means a gap - 2,000 years & counting.

I can claim that a comma separates the end of sacrifices from the abomination.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Razor earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Mark C 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...