Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

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

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

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

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

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Gap (Daniel 11:33-35)


LindaR

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.


"...he shall make it desolate" refers BACK to the previous statement within the same sentence of the sacrifices being stopped at the middle of the week.

The abomination of desolation is still in the 70th week no matter how hard you try to pull it out.

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Advanced Member

The abomination of desolation was said by Christ to be the armies surrounding Jerusalem, however YOU try to pull out of it.

Mark 13:14 ¶ But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house:
16 And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment.

Luke 21:20 ¶ 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 mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

These days of vengence were God's vengence on the Jews for crucifying their messiah. This completed our Lord's quote in Luke 4, Jesus said the first part of the quote was fulfilled at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

We've already discussed the Olivet discourse several times, and the point is not what the abomination of desolation is, the point is when it is. The Bible says it happens during the 70th week, and that's all there is to it.

Now how do you explain it being in the 70th week and yet happening 40 years after Christ died which was in the middle of the week?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

We've already discussed the Olivet discourse several times, and the point is not what the abomination of desolation is, the point is when it is. The Bible says it happens during the 70th week, and that's all there is to it.

Now how do you explain it being in the 70th week and yet happening 40 years after Christ died which was in the middle of the week?


Jesus said it would be at the time when they saw the armies surrounded Jerusalem. They saw that in AD66, and the christians fled in accordance with Christ's command, "When you see.....,"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


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?

I've not put forth a theory so you can't dismiss it.

Spurgeon was alive when Darby started spreading dispensationalism and Spurgeon noted that it was a new teaching, was unbiblical, and even stated that if Darby were not such a gifted speaker his ideas would have been seen as nutty everyone.

I mentioned Spurgeon only because you first mentioned some others and disclaimed them because they were not Baptist.

As to "what saith the Scripture", the Scripture says there will be 70 weeks. Scripture does not say there will be 69 weeks followed by numerous weeks that won't be counted until eventually we reach a week we'll call the 70th week.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

70 weeks =

7 weeks from Cyrus' decree till the 31st year of Darius, aka Artaxerxes, 62 weeks till the baptism of Jesus. The details of that week is filled in at Dan.11. I week from His Baptism Jesus ministered to the Jews. In the midst of the week, he was cut off, but continued his ministry to the Jews through the apostles. The 70th week ended with the deah of Stephen, the conversion of Cornelius and of Paul. 70 weeks all accounted for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

70 weeks =

7 weeks from Cyrus' decree till the 31st year of Darius, aka Artaxerxes, 62 weeks till the baptism of Jesus. The details of that week is filled in at Dan.11. I week from His Baptism Jesus ministered to the Jews. In the midst of the week, he was cut off, but continued his ministry to the Jews through the apostles. The 70th week ended with the deah of Stephen, the conversion of Cornelius and of Paul. 70 weeks all accounted for.


Riiiiiiight..... unless you actually read the text. Keep telling yourself that, brother.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



Riiiiiiight..... unless you actually read the text. Keep telling yourself that, brother.

This isn't helpful at all. At least a timeline was put forth. If you disagree could you show why you believe this is wrong and how you think the timeline is to look? Otherwise it's really impossible to compare and contrast in order to discern the truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This isn't helpful at all. At least a timeline was put forth. If you disagree could you show why you believe this is wrong and how you think the timeline is to look? Otherwise it's really impossible to compare and contrast in order to discern the truth.

Rick did give a very thorough timeline earlier in the conversation....but it was dismissed as "imaginative interpretation." Of course, Rick dealt with every word in the text.....

On the history stuff:
You are still appealing to men, and you are still appealing to the "winners" said about the "losers."
Some people think Hyles was "nutty." So what?
Some people think Ruckman is "nutty." so what?
I think Calvin was "nutty" along with Augustine and Origen. so what?
When it comes to man condemning other men, I get very suspicious, because I know how "the brethren" get. They get jealous over the dumbest things. If Preacher A didn't think of an idea that Preacher B started preaching on, then Preacher A automatically condemns Preacher B for one simple reason - competition. Preacher A is too proud to admit that he might be wrong, and Preacher A could never be humble enough to admit that God might use another man to fill in any "gaps" (haha!) in his ministry!

So I could really care less about what Spurgeon thought about Darby. And I could really care less about your version of history.
This is why debates about "the historical record" are meaningless because all we end up doing is put our History collections up against each other. I have been actively involved in the ministry for 22 years now, and have been reading all the way through. I have read quite a bit of "church" history. I am well versed in your version of it.
But I also have substantial evidence that most "historians" omit because they HATE THE SOURCE. It has nothing to do with accuracy, or accidental oversight. The fact is that they hate the Baptists, and they think that the big-shot muckity-muck theologians are the be-all/end-all of Christian theology.
To which I say - "BUNK!"

So the "historical argument" gets you nowhere with me. I am not intimidated by that "guilty-by-association" tactic. I have ample evidence on my side. It is not worth our time to debate all this historical nonsense because it is far too subjective, and can be manipulated too easily.

Rick has done a masterful job of defending our position. And, as always, you guys just keep ignoring plain, direct, clear statements, and then putting passages together that don't belong together (i.e. NOT "rightly" dividing!). And, as usual, when you guys get cornered, you try to change the subject to get us off track!

Nice job Rick!
Link to comment
Share on other sites



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.


Sorry, Ian, only dispensationalists are alowed to do that. We are to interpret the Bible as we read it. No natural gaps, like between Isaac's birth and his birthday party when he was done being nursed. Those happened several seconds apart because you can read the passage in several seconds. However, in the dispensational scheme of things, Isaac's celebration may have been several thousand years after his birth. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Sorry, Ian, only dispensationalists are allowed to do that. We are to interpret the Bible as we read it.

Actually, WE have to read the Bible as THEY interpret it. But I prefer to read the Bible in its context, & see what God says before I interpret. If interpretation is necessary, we need clear Scriptural guidelines.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


Rick did give a very thorough timeline earlier in the conversation....but it was dismissed as "imaginative interpretation." Of course, Rick dealt with every word in the text.....

On the history stuff:
You are still appealing to men, and you are still appealing to the "winners" said about the "losers."
Some people think Hyles was "nutty." So what?
Some people think Ruckman is "nutty." so what?
I think Calvin was "nutty" along with Augustine and Origen. so what?
When it comes to man condemning other men, I get very suspicious, because I know how "the brethren" get. They get jealous over the dumbest things. If Preacher A didn't think of an idea that Preacher B started preaching on, then Preacher A automatically condemns Preacher B for one simple reason - competition. Preacher A is too proud to admit that he might be wrong, and Preacher A could never be humble enough to admit that God might use another man to fill in any "gaps" (haha!) in his ministry!

So I could really care less about what Spurgeon thought about Darby. And I could really care less about your version of history.
This is why debates about "the historical record" are meaningless because all we end up doing is put our History collections up against each other. I have been actively involved in the ministry for 22 years now, and have been reading all the way through. I have read quite a bit of "church" history. I am well versed in your version of it.
But I also have substantial evidence that most "historians" omit because they HATE THE SOURCE. It has nothing to do with accuracy, or accidental oversight. The fact is that they hate the Baptists, and they think that the big-shot muckity-muck theologians are the be-all/end-all of Christian theology.
To which I say - "BUNK!"

So the "historical argument" gets you nowhere with me. I am not intimidated by that "guilty-by-association" tactic. I have ample evidence on my side. It is not worth our time to debate all this historical nonsense because it is far too subjective, and can be manipulated too easily.

Rick has done a masterful job of defending our position. And, as always, you guys just keep ignoring plain, direct, clear statements, and then putting passages together that don't belong together (i.e. NOT "rightly" dividing!). And, as usual, when you guys get cornered, you try to change the subject to get us off track!

Nice job Rick!

There is no "my history" or "their history" and I don't recall bringing that up. You brought up the comments of men and complained they were not Baptist. What I pointed out was a well respected Baptist at the very time Darby began his dispensationalism spoke out against this at the time. That's not a matter of history, it's a matter of what Spurgeon said, wrote and preached. Spurgeon was in a position to know new teaching in his time and well versed enough in Scripture to comment upon what others were preaching and teaching in his day.

By your idea that no men of God are worth listening to, we should not bother to read the sermons or biographies of any of the great men of God. As far as that goes, why bother listening to what any man has to say today, which would mean there would be no point in having preachers, Sunday services, message boards or even friendships.

The fact is, men of God do have something to say and we are commanded by Scripture to listen and learn from them just as we are commanded to help others in the same way.

For some reason you seem to take the discussion here very personal. You become overly defensive when someone asks a question or puts forth an alternate idea rather than simply engaging in discussion, learning, teaching.

I don't know if Invicta's timeline is correct or not but it was put forth in an easy to follow manner. Rick's a grown man, one I consider a friend, and doesn't need you to try and defend him from what you wrongly perceive to be attacks. For the most part Rick is very good about trying to answer sincere questions in an understandable manner.

If you are unable to put forth a concise timeline to compare with the other one, that's fine, but there is no need to launch attacks, act offended or become defensive.

No offense intended, but you seem more intent upon proving you are right than in trying to teach anyone what Scripture says. You also seem intent upon seeing anyone who doesn't agree with you or doesn't even know your view as being "one of them" rather than accepting the fact that not everyone is "us" or "them", but some are those who have not yet come to a conclusion and are earnestly seeking answers.

Rick, unless he allows his emotions to post, at least tries to provide helpful teaching towards understanding his point and I truly commend such posts.

As of yet, no one has shown through Scripture that when God said 70 weeks he didn't literally mean 70 weeks. No one has shown through Scripture that when God said 70 weeks He really meant 69 literal weeks to be followed by numerous weeks that wouldn't be counted which would be followed by a week that would be declared to be the 70th week though it literally wasn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


This isn't helpful at all. At least a timeline was put forth. If you disagree could you show why you believe this is wrong and how you think the timeline is to look? Otherwise it's really impossible to compare and contrast in order to discern the truth.


Ha, I know it wasn't helpful; I wasn't trying to be helpful at that point. After saying the same thing about five different times and watching them ignore or twist the text I usually resort to sarcasm and questionable behavior. :-)

If you back up and read a few of my posts you'll see why I believe what they are putting forth is overlooking some major things in the text. I don't really want to have to retype it all over again, but to summarize:

1. The message of Daniel 9 from Gabriel was concerning the nation of Israel and the holy city Jerusalem. Once the 70 weeks were complete, then there were several things that were supposed to happen to the nation of Israel that have never happened. All of the other weeks have to do with the nation of Israel, but somehow the events following don't apply to them.

2. The abomination of desolation is supposed to happen in the 70th week. The text is very clear on this, but they do everything they can to remove it from the 70th week because it destroys their system. They teach the crucifixion happens in the middle of the 70th week, and they remove the abomination of desolation from the week because they teach it happens at 70 A.D. They can't have both, obviously, because then you'd have a week with a middle part of about 40 years.

3. They ignore the fact that the last person spoken of before the covenant is mentioned is the Roman prince that shall come. It is this prince that confirms the covenant, stops the sacrifices, and commits the abomination of desolation.

There are no problems in these areas with the dispensational view. Please go back and reread the previous posts to get more info on this, specifically posts #88, #90, and #94.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


Actually, WE have to read the Bible as THEY interpret it. But I prefer to read the Bible in its context, & see what God says before I interpret. If interpretation is necessary, we need clear Scriptural guidelines.


That's rich. Keep telling yourself that guys, but everyone else can see that you're ignoring a lot of things in the text.

You can make the Bible teach anything if you choose to ignore what it actually says.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

John81

There is no "my history" or "their history" and I don't recall bringing that up. You brought up the comments of men and complained they were not Baptist. What I pointed out was a well respected Baptist at the very time Darby began his dispensationalism spoke out against this at the time. That's not a matter of history, it's a matter of what Spurgeon said, wrote and preached. Spurgeon was in a position to know new teaching in his time and well versed enough in Scripture to comment upon what others were preaching and teaching in his day.

It's not a matter of history?
Did Spurgeon say it? Then it IS a matter of history. You brought this up as a means of "guilt-by-association" argument. You think I should just drop my dispensationalism because "Spurgeon said it was wrong." Well, I say Spurgeon was wrong - on that point.
All men are wrong somewhere! Wesley, Whitefield, Clarke, Gill, Henry, Chafer, Scofield, Larkin, Ruckman, Greene, Ironside, and (gasp!) even YOUR favorite commentators are wrong too!
If you are going to go with the historical argument, then you had better come up with a very good defense of the old heretics Origen, Augustine, Jerome, Calvin, and all of the others who promoted all of this preterist/allegorical stuff. Those men were died-in-the-wool HERETICS.

By your idea that no men of God are worth listening to, we should not bother to read the sermons or biographies of any of the great men of God. As far as that goes, why bother listening to what any man has to say today, which would mean there would be no point in having preachers, Sunday services, message boards or even friendships.

I didn't say that and you know it. You initiated the historical argument, and you seem to be upset that I took it away from you. The historical argument goes nowhere. Let's discuss the Scriptures.

The fact is, men of God do have something to say and we are commanded by Scripture to listen and learn from them just as we are commanded to help others in the same way.

I agree that there is no need for us to "reinvent the wheel" when it comes to discussing Bible doctrine. We can and should learn from the men that God used from the past. However, we do have a King James Bible by which we judge ALL THINGS, including what those men of God from days gone by wrote and believed. According to what you have written above, we should take as Bible truth everything that Wesley and Whitefield believed, even though they were baby-sprinkling Anglicans. Well, they may have gotten salvation by faith correct, but they were certainly wrong on other points.
There is no doubt that God used Spurgeon in a mighty way - that doesn't mean that we swallow everything he says without judging it by the Scripture. The bottom line is that Spurgeon was wrong about Darby's "system."

For some reason you seem to take the discussion here very personal. You become overly defensive when someone asks a question or puts forth an alternate idea rather than simply engaging in discussion, learning, teaching.

No, I don't have time to play games. Ian and Anime are not here to learn. They are here to promote their false doctrine. I don't mind debating the issue as I have time. If others are "listening" to the conversation, then fine. But I know how to discern the difference between "an honest question" and somebody who is stirring the pot. I don't take any of this stuff personal unless someone makes a direct attack upon my ministry or personal character. And even then, I really don't care! God called me to preach and pastor our church; God equipped me for the ministry; and I am teaching what I have learned through prayer and study.

It's nothing personal from me. I don't perceive anyone "attacking" me, and I am not "attacking" anyone else. I am arguing my point directly, strongly, passionately, and pointedly. I can't help it if you misread all of that as "emotional."

I don't know if Invicta's timeline is correct or not but it was put forth in an easy to follow manner. Rick's a grown man, one I consider a friend, and doesn't need you to try and defend him from what you wrongly perceive to be attacks. For the most part Rick is very good about trying to answer sincere questions in an understandable manner.

I wasn't defending anyone....Rick can handle himself. I was just letting everyone know that I liked what he had to say. Anything wrong with that?

If you are unable to put forth a concise timeline to compare with the other one, that's fine, but there is no need to launch attacks, act offended or become defensive.

Rick did that already....I am not offended....what's your problem anyway?

No offense intended, but you seem more intent upon proving you are right than in trying to teach anyone what Scripture says. You also seem intent upon seeing anyone who doesn't agree with you or doesn't even know your view as being "one of them" rather than accepting the fact that not everyone is "us" or "them", but some are those who have not yet come to a conclusion and are earnestly seeking answers.

Well, I am a pastor, and I am supposed to teach my flock what I believe to be the truth. I am not going to apologize to anyone for it. If what I believe is true, then that means that this preterist view/allegorical view is false. I have studied this stuff out now for more than 20 years. The more I study it, the more convinced I am of my position. The answers are right there in the book. If anyone is "earnestly seeking answers," then my suggestion would be to get off these forums, get an old KJV, read it, and ask God to show you the truth about it. All forums like this one do is breed debate and confusion.

Rick, unless he allows his emotions to post, at least tries to provide helpful teaching towards understanding his point and I truly commend such posts.

Maybe you just don't like my style of writing (you probably wouldn't like my preaching either!). Look, these are complicated issues. I am busy man. I don't always have time to write lengthy detailed posts on these issues. Rick did a masterful job of saying what I would have said, so there is no need for me to repeat our position.
However, I will say that several here have "liked" my posts, so apparently some people "understood" my point, and it was "helpful" to them. I don't believe in "beating around the bush." I am direct, I am bold, I call it as I see it, I teach what I believe to be the truth. If you don't LIKE that, I can't help that. I am not going to apologize for it.
I believe that preaching and teaching should be RED HOT - hot enough to make Hell real, to make sinners squirm, to make the saints "uneasy" about their sin, to make promoters of false doctrine a little bit nervous - at least when they are around me.
Elijah and John the Baptist and Paul were not always the most "personable" of men, you know!
Maybe that is the difference here. Maybe it is a cultural thing. People down here in Texas LIKE my style of preaching and teaching, as do most people in "the South." THey like it plain and hot. They can "understand" it. But I know the northerners don't (and that is where I am from - go figure!)

As of yet, no one has shown through Scripture that when God said 70 weeks he didn't literally mean 70 weeks. No one has shown through Scripture that when God said 70 weeks He really meant 69 literal weeks to be followed by numerous weeks that wouldn't be counted which would be followed by a week that would be declared to be the 70th week though it literally wasn't.

Rick did an excellent job defending our view, but you say that "nobody" has shown our position from Scripture????
Nuts, man. That's why I don't believe that MOST of the participants here are "earnestly seeking answers." Maybe some of the non-participating readers are searching for answers, but MOST of the participants have already made up their minds....as you have just demonstrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



Ha, I know it wasn't helpful; I wasn't trying to be helpful at that point. After saying the same thing about five different times and watching them ignore or twist the text I usually resort to sarcasm and questionable behavior. :-)

If you back up and read a few of my posts you'll see why I believe what they are putting forth is overlooking some major things in the text. I don't really want to have to retype it all over again, but to summarize:

1. The message of Daniel 9 from Gabriel was concerning the nation of Israel and the holy city Jerusalem. Once the 70 weeks were complete, then there were several things that were supposed to happen to the nation of Israel that have never happened. All of the other weeks have to do with the nation of Israel, but somehow the events following don't apply to them.

2. The abomination of desolation is supposed to happen in the 70th week. The text is very clear on this, but they do everything they can to remove it from the 70th week because it destroys their system. They teach the crucifixion happens in the middle of the 70th week, and they remove the abomination of desolation from the week because they teach it happens at 70 A.D. They can't have both, obviously, because then you'd have a week with a middle part of about 40 years.

3. They ignore the fact that the last person spoken of before the covenant is mentioned is the Roman prince that shall come. It is this prince that confirms the covenant, stops the sacrifices, and commits the abomination of desolation.

There are no problems in these areas with the dispensational view. Please go back and reread the previous posts to get more info on this, specifically posts #88, #90, and #94.

Thank you Rick. Try to remember, I'm not "one of them" when I ask questions about this. It doesn't help me much to only hear that "their side" does or doesn't whatever.

In any case, I still see where God said 70 weeks, and regardless of what has or hasn't happened, I don't see where God ever changed His statement that it would be 70 weeks to something else. Where does Scripture say the 70 weeks were changed to 69 literal weeks, followed by more weeks than I can figure without a calculator that are not to be counted, and then some week after that would be considered the 70th week even though it obviously isn't literally the 70th week as the other 69 weeks were?

I've read your posts, and it's possible I've missed something somewhere, but I don't see where God ever changed His literal statement about 70 weeks into something else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

John81

There is no "my history" or "their history" and I don't recall bringing that up. You brought up the comments of men and complained they were not Baptist. What I pointed out was a well respected Baptist at the very time Darby began his dispensationalism spoke out against this at the time. That's not a matter of history, it's a matter of what Spurgeon said, wrote and preached. Spurgeon was in a position to know new teaching in his time and well versed enough in Scripture to comment upon what others were preaching and teaching in his day.

It's not a matter of history?
Did Spurgeon say it? Then it IS a matter of history. You brought this up as a means of "guilt-by-association" argument. You think I should just drop my dispensationalism because "Spurgeon said it was wrong." Well, I say Spurgeon was wrong - on that point.
All men are wrong somewhere! Wesley, Whitefield, Clarke, Gill, Henry, Chafer, Scofield, Larkin, Ruckman, Greene, Ironside, and (gasp!) even YOUR favorite commentators are wrong too!
If you are going to go with the historical argument, then you had better come up with a very good defense of the old heretics Origen, Augustine, Jerome, Calvin, and all of the others who promoted all of this preterist/allegorical stuff. Those men were died-in-the-wool HERETICS.

By your idea that no men of God are worth listening to, we should not bother to read the sermons or biographies of any of the great men of God. As far as that goes, why bother listening to what any man has to say today, which would mean there would be no point in having preachers, Sunday services, message boards or even friendships.

I didn't say that and you know it. You initiated the historical argument, and you seem to be upset that I took it away from you. The historical argument goes nowhere. Let's discuss the Scriptures.

The fact is, men of God do have something to say and we are commanded by Scripture to listen and learn from them just as we are commanded to help others in the same way.

I agree that there is no need for us to "reinvent the wheel" when it comes to discussing Bible doctrine. We can and should learn from the men that God used from the past. However, we do have a King James Bible by which we judge ALL THINGS, including what those men of God from days gone by wrote and believed. According to what you have written above, we should take as Bible truth everything that Wesley and Whitefield believed, even though they were baby-sprinkling Anglicans. Well, they may have gotten salvation by faith correct, but they were certainly wrong on other points.
There is no doubt that God used Spurgeon in a mighty way - that doesn't mean that we swallow everything he says without judging it by the Scripture. The bottom line is that Spurgeon was wrong about Darby's "system."

For some reason you seem to take the discussion here very personal. You become overly defensive when someone asks a question or puts forth an alternate idea rather than simply engaging in discussion, learning, teaching.

No, I don't have time to play games. Ian and Anime are not here to learn. They are here to promote their false doctrine. I don't mind debating the issue as I have time. If others are "listening" to the conversation, then fine. But I know how to discern the difference between "an honest question" and somebody who is stirring the pot. I don't take any of this stuff personal unless someone makes a direct attack upon my ministry or personal character. And even then, I really don't care! God called me to preach and pastor our church; God equipped me for the ministry; and I am teaching what I have learned through prayer and study.

It's nothing personal from me. I don't perceive anyone "attacking" me, and I am not "attacking" anyone else. I am arguing my point directly, strongly, passionately, and pointedly. I can't help it if you misread all of that as "emotional."

I don't know if Invicta's timeline is correct or not but it was put forth in an easy to follow manner. Rick's a grown man, one I consider a friend, and doesn't need you to try and defend him from what you wrongly perceive to be attacks. For the most part Rick is very good about trying to answer sincere questions in an understandable manner.

I wasn't defending anyone....Rick can handle himself. I was just letting everyone know that I liked what he had to say. Anything wrong with that?

If you are unable to put forth a concise timeline to compare with the other one, that's fine, but there is no need to launch attacks, act offended or become defensive.

Rick did that already....I am not offended....what's your problem anyway?

No offense intended, but you seem more intent upon proving you are right than in trying to teach anyone what Scripture says. You also seem intent upon seeing anyone who doesn't agree with you or doesn't even know your view as being "one of them" rather than accepting the fact that not everyone is "us" or "them", but some are those who have not yet come to a conclusion and are earnestly seeking answers.

Well, I am a pastor, and I am supposed to teach my flock what I believe to be the truth. I am not going to apologize to anyone for it. If what I believe is true, then that means that this preterist view/allegorical view is false. I have studied this stuff out now for more than 20 years. The more I study it, the more convinced I am of my position. The answers are right there in the book. If anyone is "earnestly seeking answers," then my suggestion would be to get off these forums, get an old KJV, read it, and ask God to show you the truth about it. All forums like this one do is breed debate and confusion.

Rick, unless he allows his emotions to post, at least tries to provide helpful teaching towards understanding his point and I truly commend such posts.

Maybe you just don't like my style of writing (you probably wouldn't like my preaching either!). Look, these are complicated issues. I am busy man. I don't always have time to write lengthy detailed posts on these issues. Rick did a masterful job of saying what I would have said, so there is no need for me to repeat our position.
However, I will say that several here have "liked" my posts, so apparently some people "understood" my point, and it was "helpful" to them. I don't believe in "beating around the bush." I am direct, I am bold, I call it as I see it, I teach what I believe to be the truth. If you don't LIKE that, I can't help that. I am not going to apologize for it.
I believe that preaching and teaching should be RED HOT - hot enough to make Hell real, to make sinners squirm, to make the saints "uneasy" about their sin, to make promoters of false doctrine a little bit nervous - at least when they are around me.
Elijah and John the Baptist and Paul were not always the most "personable" of men, you know!
Maybe that is the difference here. Maybe it is a cultural thing. People down here in Texas LIKE my style of preaching and teaching, as do most people in "the South." THey like it plain and hot. They can "understand" it. But I know the northerners don't (and that is where I am from - go figure!)

As of yet, no one has shown through Scripture that when God said 70 weeks he didn't literally mean 70 weeks. No one has shown through Scripture that when God said 70 weeks He really meant 69 literal weeks to be followed by numerous weeks that wouldn't be counted which would be followed by a week that would be declared to be the 70th week though it literally wasn't.

Rick did an excellent job defending our view, but you say that "nobody" has shown our position from Scripture????
Nuts, man. That's why I don't believe that MOST of the participants here are "earnestly seeking answers." Maybe some of the non-participating readers are searching for answers, but MOST of the participants have already made up their minds....as you have just demonstrated.

I'm sorry you are unable to articulate what you call your view in a manner that actually gets the point across. I'm thankful that Rick at least tries.

I've studied the Word for 30 years and I've yet to see where Scripture indicates that when God said 70 weeks he didn't really mean 70 weeks. Why are we to take the first 69 weeks to be literal and not the 70th? I see no Scriptural support for that. If someone could show from Scripture that God said those 70 weeks would be handled that way then I would certainly be checking into that. So far, no one has.

As for all the side issues, I study those out separately as they relate to what Scripture actually says about the 70 weeks. I'm not partisan for any of the many "views", I'm simply looking to see what Scripture says.

One problem I've noticed when studying the area of eschatology is that no one "side" has an airtight case from beginning to end, yet for the most part, each side will fight to the bitter end to prove their side right, even to the point of denying the holes or potential problems in even the tiniest aspect of their side.

It seems God specifically didn't give us a 100% clear blueprint regarding the end times. I believe enough has been given to us so we can know some things for sure and draw pretty good estimations for much of the rest, but God has left some things open, which is in keeping with what He told us in Deuteronomy 29:29.

We should beware of pride in thinking we know more than we do. The religious leaders of Jesus day, as well as many others, who thought they understood the Scripture with regard to the coming Christ, turned out to be wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Thank you Rick. Try to remember, I'm not "one of them" when I ask questions about this. It doesn't help me much to only hear that "their side" does or doesn't whatever.

In any case, I still see where God said 70 weeks, and regardless of what has or hasn't happened, I don't see where God ever changed His statement that it would be 70 weeks to something else. Where does Scripture say the 70 weeks were changed to 69 literal weeks, followed by more weeks than I can figure without a calculator that are not to be counted, and then some week after that would be considered the 70th week even though it obviously isn't literally the 70th week as the other 69 weeks were?

I've read your posts, and it's possible I've missed something somewhere, but I don't see where God ever changed His literal statement about 70 weeks into something else.


I don't think He ever specifically says that.

This is why I believe what I believe:

1. The 70th week has not occurred yet. The things that were supposed to happen to Israel and the holy city after the 70 weeks were complete have not yet happened, the prince that shall come has not come, and there has been no covenant confirmed for seven years only to have the sacrifices taken away and the abomination of desolation committed 3 1/2 years into it. These things will happen in the 70th week, and they have not yet happened all within a seven year period.

2. God has set aside the nation of Israel for a future date (Rom. 9, 11). He will return to them, and they will accept their Messiah. Following that, all Israel will be saved and the things that are supposed to happen to Israel after the 70 weeks are up will occur.

3. The body of Christ, that is the church, was a mystery only revealed to Paul. It was unheard of before then (Eph. 3). The gospel went first to the Jews and only the Jews (Matthew 10). They rejected it over and over again, and then it went to the Gentile (Acts 13, 28)

4. God is genuine about His offers. He genuinely offered the Messiah to the nation of Israel multiple times, and they rejected Him. Jesus wanted to be accepted by Israel, but they rejected Him. (Matt. 23:37)

Therefore, when God is done with the Gentiles He'll go back to the Jews during the Tribulation and they'll accept Jesus. All the things described will happen in the 70th week will then occur, and then Israel will get what was promised to occur after the 70 weeks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



I don't think He ever specifically says that.

This is why I believe what I believe:

1. The 70th week has not occurred yet. The things that were supposed to happen to Israel and the holy city after the 70 weeks were complete have not yet happened, the prince that shall come has not come, and there has been no covenant confirmed for seven years only to have the sacrifices taken away and the abomination of desolation committed 3 1/2 years into it. These things will happen in the 70th week, and they have not yet happened all within a seven year period.

2. God has set aside the nation of Israel for a future date (Rom. 9, 11). He will return to them, and they will accept their Messiah. Following that, all Israel will be saved and the things that are supposed to happen to Israel after the 70 weeks are up will occur.

3. The body of Christ, that is the church, was a mystery only revealed to Paul. It was unheard of before then (Eph. 3). The gospel went first to the Jews and only the Jews (Matthew 10). They rejected it over and over again, and then it went to the Gentile (Acts 13, 28)

4. God is genuine about His offers. He genuinely offered the Messiah to the nation of Israel multiple times, and they rejected Him. Jesus wanted to be accepted by Israel, but they rejected Him. (Matt. 23:37)

Therefore, when God is done with the Gentiles He'll go back to the Jews during the Tribulation and they'll accept Jesus. All the things described will happen in the 70th week will then occur, and then Israel will get what was promised to occur after the 70 weeks.

Yes, I understand how you believe these things tie into this but I don't see how we can take God saying 70 weeks, a very specific time period, to mean something else. Are there at least other examples of God saying something would occur within a certain period fo time but only part of that time period was literal?

I'm not saying any of the other things you have mentioned are right or wrong, I'm only asking about the 70 weeks itself. From the plain reading, it seems God is indicating a literal 70 weeks. Also from the plain reading it seems the first 69 weeks are literal. That being the case, the plain literal reading would be that the 70th week would be also.

If the 70th week is not to be considered a literal 70th week, as were the other 69, then why is there no clarification of this in Scripture?

The plain reading of the Word regarding what God said about the 70 weeks seems to indicate a literal 490 years, with no indication at all of it meaning 483 years, followed by thousands of years, and then a week which will be called the 70th week.

Regardless if what you believe is to happen in the end, whether it's right, wrong or both, I don't see how the 70 weeks is presented in Scripture as anything other than a literal 70 weeks.

If I've missed something that shows the 70 weeks are not to be taken literally, but in another way, I would appreciate knowing the verse(s) so I can study this out.

Thank you Rick, I know you've tried to put a lot into this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



Riiiiiiight..... unless you actually read the text. Keep telling yourself that, brother.


Actually, I have read the text, prove it wrong from scripture, if you can.

Here is my scripture.

Cyrus gave the decree. Isaih 44:26 & 45:13

Nehemiah was one of the leading Jews who returned with Zerubbabel, Ezra 2:2. so he could not possibly have repaired the wall under Artaxerxes as he would have been over 150 years old. Persian names seemed to have been titles, Darius meaning merchant, or huckster. Xerxes meaning warrior. Artaxerxes meaning Great Warrior. Jewish and persion traditions give the Persian empire only about 55 years, rather than the 205 generally accepted today. Ezra give different names to kings known under secular names. History knows the names of the first five Persian kings as 1:Cyrus, 2:Cambyses, 3:The imposter, the Psuedo Smerdis and his brother or friend, known as the Magii. 4: Darius. 5: Xerxes. Ezra names these as 1: Cyrus. 2: Ahasuerus, 3: Artaxerxes. 4: Darius, 5: Not mentioned. (for 1-4 see Ezra 4.) Darius seemed to be called Artaxerxes after he overthrew at least 9 claiming to be be the ligetimate ruler, including one called Nebuchdnezzar 2.
The first seven weeks probably went from Cyrus decree till the 31st year of Darius/Artaxerxes. I say probably, because it is hard to prove from history as the Perians did not seem to bother about recording such things, but it would fit with the scriptures. For instance if you look online you will probably find that Cyrus reigned: 7 years: 8 years: 9 years: 19 years: 29-31 years. So I give what I think the most likely. Cyrus 9, Cambyses 8, the Magii 1 year: Darius/Artaxerxes 31. Total 49, or 7 weeks.

To Messiah, the prince His baptism, 62 weeks, details given recently. 3½ years to the crucifiction, another 3½ years to the Conversion of Cornelius, etc.
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.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 18 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...