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

@John: Amen.

@Rick: Have you thought of the possibility that the time of the Jews is over and so are the 70 weeks, since they brought about their purpose, which is the gospel to all nations, but that Romans 9 and 11 talk about God still having a purpose for them as well? You don't have to be a dispensationalist to believe Romans 9 and 11 and that the 70 weeks are up. I personally believe that where Romans 9 and 11 is talking about ethnic Jews, it is talking about individual Jews being added to the church in the gospel age. However, I know people on the covenantal side who believe it is talking about the remnant of the Jewish nation as a whole being being saved at Jesus' second coming as dispensationalists believe, sans the pretrib church rapture. Just to throw that out there. The delay of the 70th week is not necessary to believe Romans 9 and 11 or to even interpret those chapters the way you do. I think this is what John81 maybe talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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 said that Rick has presented OUR view very well. In other words, I agree with Rick. Why should I regurgitate what Rick has already stated?

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.

We have never stated that the 70th week "is not literal." The Tribulation period is 7 years, i.e. 1 week. It is the 70th week. It does not follow consecutively, but that does not mean it is not literal. There are other "gaps" in the Bible....

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.

Anime and Covenanter are not giving you what the Scripture says. If Rick, I and others have not proven anything else, it should be that their position is indeed lacking in Scriptural support (see "The Eagle" thread, for instance! Neither of them have given definitive Scriptural evidence to show that their interpretation is correct. It is all conjecture, with some highly interprative "historical" tidbits read into the text.)

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.

Dispensationalism answers all "problems" in Scripture. It is always the "questioners" who hesitate to "take sides" who find "problems." They simply don't like to commit to anything, and would rather appear to be "spiritual" by "not taking sides." The answers are in the Book for those who choose to believe it. The question should be this:
Which "side" deals with the text as it is written, and accounts for EVERY SINGLE WORD of the text?
Which "side" disregards the plain wording of the text, and inserts an imaginative scheme that removes specific wording from the text?
Rick has accounted for every word; the others have dismissed key words as "symbolic" or "allegorical" or something else. Rick has called them on it (and I have also on other threads), and they dismissed our charges without answering them...or changed the subject.


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.

Don't misunderstand me here. I do not claim to have all of the answers. There are some things that are beyond my comprehension. This isn't one of them. And the things that are not clear are relatively few in number. I believe this is a sign of the last days, when people cling to this notion that "we can't know these things for sure." I think we can. The issue is again, believing every single word in the KJV exactly as it stands, without adding our interpretation into it. If we can be absolutely sure of our salvation, then we should absolutely sure of our doctrine. The pastors of the local churches that God has ordained are to be "apt to teach," and we are to "feed the flock of God." How can we do this if we can't have a great deal of certainty about our position?
Besides, Ian and Anime are just as certain about their position as I am of mine. I am just a great deal more blunt about the implications of my position.

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.

Yes, we should be aware of pride. People have this false notion that somebody who is dogmatic in their doctrine is somehow a "proud" person. I wonder then why you don't point the "proud" card at Ian and Anime also, since they also refuse to give ground in this debate!
Roman Catholics think the same thing towards us when we tell them that we "know for sure" we are saved and on the way to Heaven. It does not mean we are "proud" about it - we simply cling to the promises of God, and have assurance of our salvation.
We should not be proud of our knowledge, but we should not be ashamed of it either.
The promise from Jesus Christ was that the Holy Spirit would be our teacher in ALL THINGS. God the Holy Spirit is the Author of Scripture, and knows the truth, and can teach us the truth if we are willing to receive it.

There is another danger we should be aware of, and that is a false humility that pretends to be more spiritual than someone else by claiming NOT to be certain on doctrine. We can know and SHOULD know. We are told repeatedly in Scripture that we are not to be ignorant of these things!

I have no personal axe to grind here. I am merely defending the truth as I understand it. And I won't be responding to anymore of this absurdity, John - let's get back on topic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



"...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.

The OP makes a lot of a colon in Dan. 11, reading in a gap of 2,000 years. We need to analyse this passage in similar detail.

Let us see what the Dan 9 passage specifically says.
2
In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seve
nt
y years in the desolations of Jerusalem.


70 years prophesied - so Daniel prays for the restoration.


24
Seve
nt
y 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 anoi
nt
the most Holy.


The saving work of the anointed one - the most Holy - the Messiah - is specified. Full salvation, & the fulfilment of prophecy.

25
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandme
nt
to restore and to build Jerusalem u
nt
o 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.


That totals 69 weeks of rebuilding & trouble - the trouble being prophesied in detail in Dan. 10 & 11. The specific events will therefore take place in the 70th week.

26
And after threescore and two weeks

After, not necessarily at the dividing point of 69/70, nor even necessarily during the 70th week, but after threescore and two weeks
shall Messiah be cut off, but n
ot
for himself:

That is Calvary - I hope we all agree.
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 u
nt
o the end of the war desolations are determined.

That is the consequence of the cutting off of the Messiah -the AD 70 destruction is prophesied. Notice the prince that shall come contrasts with Messiah the Prince.

27
And he shall confirm the covena
nt
with many for one week:

Now we are in the 70th week - Jesus confirms the covenant by his earthly ministry, & by the Apostolic preaching after Pentecost, with the week naturally ending with Stephen formally declaring the Jews "uncircumcised." Notice that Messiah is the overall subject, never "the prince." It's "the people" who carry out the destruction. Notice also THE covenant, not A covenant, and that the covenant is neither made nor broken, but is "confirmed." It's Messiah who confirms it. The fact that the Jews are covenant breakers is not stated here.

and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the
ob
lation to cease,

By Messiah's sacrifice on Calvary, when the temple veil is rent from above, & all animal sacrifices cease to be effective.
.
and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate,

In the middle of the 70th week, in Jesus' last week, after specifying in great detail the abominations of the Jews, in Mat. 23, Messiah declared: 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. Notice the difference between Dan. 9:38 &11:31 & Mat. 24:15.

even u
nt
il the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

All that remains for the city and the sanctuary is the prophesied destruction.

No gaps, no allegories, nothing symbolic - just a literal reading of Scripture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member


The OP makes a lot of a colon in Dan. 11, reading in a gap of 2,000 years. We need to analyse this passage in similar detail.

Let us see what the Dan 9 passage specifically says.
2
In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seve
nt
y years in the desolations of Jerusalem.


70 years prophesied - so Daniel prays for the restoration.


24
Seve
nt
y 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 anoi
nt
the most Holy.


The saving work of the anointed one - the most Holy - the Messiah - is specified. Full salvation, & the fulfilment of prophecy.

25
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandme
nt
to restore and to build Jerusalem u
nt
o 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.


That totals 69 weeks of rebuilding & trouble - the trouble being prophesied in detail in Dan. 10 & 11. The specific events will therefore take place in the 70th week.

26
And after threescore and two weeks

After, not necessarily at the dividing point of 69/70, nor even necessarily during the 70th week, but after threescore and two weeks
shall Messiah be cut off, but n
ot
for himself:

That is Calvary - I hope we all agree.
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 u
nt
o the end of the war desolations are determined.

That is the consequence of the cutting off of the Messiah -the AD 70 destruction is prophesied. Notice the prince that shall come contrasts with Messiah the Prince.

27
And he shall confirm the covena
nt
with many for one week:

Now we are in the 70th week - Jesus confirms the covenant by his earthly ministry, & by the Apostolic preaching after Pentecost, with the week naturally ending with Stephen formally declaring the Jews "uncircumcised." Notice that Messiah is the overall subject, never "the prince." It's "the people" who carry out the destruction. Notice also THE covenant, not A covenant, and that the covenant is neither made nor broken, but is "confirmed." It's Messiah who confirms it. The fact that the Jews are covenant breakers is not stated here.

and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the
ob
lation to cease,

By Messiah's sacrifice on Calvary, when the temple veil is rent from above, & all animal sacrifices cease to be effective.
.
and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate,

In the middle of the 70th week, in Jesus' last week, after specifying in great detail the abominations of the Jews, in Mat. 23, Messiah declared: 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. Notice the difference between Dan. 9:38 &11:31 & Mat. 24:15.

even u
nt
il the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

All that remains for the city and the sanctuary is the prophesied destruction.

No gaps, no allegories, nothing symbolic - just a literal reading of Scripture.



Also

1Thess 2:16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't see how dispensationalism can have all the answers to Scripture when dispensationalists are not even in agreement among themselves. In studying dispensationalism I have found several different versions, from differing numbers of dispensations, whether 7, 9 or some other number, to differing viewpoints as to what each of the dispensations actually means.

To the point of the 70 weeks, once again I point out that Scripture says God declared there would be 70 weeks. These 70 weeks, according to the plain, literal reading of the Word, seem to be 70 literal weeks. I can find nothing in Scripture that says God declares the first 69 weeks to be literal and then there will be thousands of weeks (years) separating the 69th week from what will eventually be called the 70th week that obviously isn't the literal 70th week that literally follows the 69th week as all the other weeks did.

If one first can't reconcile that I don't see the point in continually pointing to other matters that fail to address the actual literal 70 week issue.

Is there another place in Scripture where God said something would be done in a specific time frame and that time frame wasn't literal?

It's absolutely not a literal 70 weeks if one says the first 69 weeks are literal but then there are centuries of weeks that God doesn't mention and won't be counted until at some point the 70th week appears in an obviously non-literal manner.

Scripture puts forth the 70 weeks as being literal, which means each week follows the next literally. If one wants to view it in another way then there must be Scripture to support that the 70th week, unlike the preceeding 69 weeks, isn't the actual 70th week that literally follows the 69th week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't see how dispensationalism can have all the answers to Scripture when dispensationalists are not even in agreement among themselves. In studying dispensationalism I have found several different versions, from differing numbers of dispensations, whether 7, 9 or some other number, to differing viewpoints as to what each of the dispensations actually means.

To the point of the 70 weeks, once again I point out that Scripture says God declared there would be 70 weeks. These 70 weeks, according to the plain, literal reading of the Word, seem to be 70 literal weeks. I can find nothing in Scripture that says God declares the first 69 weeks to be literal and then there will be thousands of weeks (years) separating the 69th week from what will eventually be called the 70th week that obviously isn't the literal 70th week that literally follows the 69th week as all the other weeks did.

If one first can't reconcile that I don't see the point in continually pointing to other matters that fail to address the actual literal 70 week issue.

Is there another place in Scripture where God said something would be done in a specific time frame and that time frame wasn't literal?

It's absolutely not a literal 70 weeks if one says the first 69 weeks are literal but then there are centuries of weeks that God doesn't mention and won't be counted until at some point the 70th week appears in an obviously non-literal manner.

Scripture puts forth the 70 weeks as being literal, which means each week follows the next literally. If one wants to view it in another way then there must be Scripture to support that the 70th week, unlike the preceeding 69 weeks, isn't the actual 70th week that literally follows the 69th week.


Ok, so then you DO think you have the answer on this, so stop pretending that you don't....Just don't be "proud" about it. ;) I would have thought that after 30 years of study on the subject that you would have come to some conclusion on the matter.

But you would still have to deal with the issues that Rick brings up about certain things be prophecied as occuring DURING that 70th week that have not happened yet.....and that is why we believe the 70th week has not happened...too many things left unanswered and unfulfilled.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



Ok, so then you DO think you have the answer on this, so stop pretending that you don't....Just don't be "proud" about it. ;) I would have thought that after 30 years of study on the subject that you would have come to some conclusion on the matter.

But you would still have to deal with the issues that Rick brings up about certain things be prophecied as occuring DURING that 70th week that have not happened yet.....and that is why we believe the 70th week has not happened...too many things left unanswered and unfulfilled.

I've already stated I don't see where the 70 weeks are to be anything but literal and I also have asked if anyone can show the 70 weeks, a very specific time God proclaimed, is anywhere said to be anything other than literal as it reads. I have stated what Scripture clearly says and asked if anyone has verses that shows the 70 weeks to be anything but literal 70 weeks.

So, no need for sarcasm, I've stated what Scripture says and I'm open to investigate any verse(s) which indicate the 70 weeks isn't literal but none have been put forth.

As to the other issues, they don't address the literal giving of the 70 weeks. None of those things overrides God's giving a very specific time period of 70 weeks.

If God does not override His literal specific time of 70 weeks, then that means it's to be read as a literal 70 weeks.

As to how the other matters fit together if we take the 70 weeks literally, as Scripture gives them, that's another issue.

First, we should determine the nature of the 70 weeks and then see what Scripture says concerning other matters rather than trying to fit what Scripture says regarding other matters into some gap that seems to be conveniently placed by some to help them make sense of certain things much like some place a gap in the creation account (again ignoring the literal declaration of time, the 7 days) in order to fit things in they don't know how to do so without.

The 70 weeks is put forth just as literal as the 7 day creation. If Scripture says otherwise, I'm open to explore that but so far no one can explain how God's declaring a 70 week time period isn't to be taken literally, especially when the first 69 weeks are clearly literal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Steve:
But you would still have to deal with the issues that Rick brings up about certain things be prophecied as occuring DURING that 70th week that have not happened yet.....and that is why we believe the 70th week has not happened...too many things left unanswered and unfulfilled.

I have dealt with all Rick's points, & everyone else's in & shown that the 70th week is literal.

Have I convinced you, John?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In dispensationalism, the cross is not a big enough event to account for the messiah being cut off in the midst of the 70th week..any teaching that degrades what Jesus did as the burning center of the bible and all prophesy is heresy..yes, dispensationalism degrades the cross to a plan b which is not even prophesied about in the OT..if the 70th week is future then so is the messiah being cut off..therefore the cross is a side thing in God's plan, not the real deal..absolute heresy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

In dispensationalism, the cross is not a big enough event to account for the messiah being cut off in the midst of the 70th week..any teaching that degrades what Jesus did as the burning center of the bible and all prophesy is heresy..yes, dispensationalism degrades the cross to a plan b which is not even prophesied about in the OT..if the 70th week is future then so is the messiah being cut off..therefore the cross is a side thing in God's plan, not the real deal..absolute heresy


Psalm 22 is a prophecy of Jesus on the cross.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'm exaggerating a bit but my point is that dispensationalism looks for something in the future to be the main event in history other than the cross.

That's because the main event IS in the future. You will never convince me that the "main event" of the Bible is when God the Son, Jesus Christ, was beaten, whipped, mocked, spit upon, and crucified naked by sinful wicked men.
Nope - that is NOT the "main event."
The main event is when Jesus Christ destroys Satan by casting him into a Lake of Fire forever, destroys this sin-riddled universe, creates a New Heaven, New Earth, and New Jerusalem in which there will be no Satan, sin, suffering, sorrow, etc.

THAT is the big day! The day when Jesus Christ is worshipped, adored, loved, honored and glorified universally, and then we sail off into eternity with HIM as the #1 item for the entire creation!

Now that doesn't mean the Cross is not important. It is important TO US because that is where we "get in." And Jesus Christ willingly suffered on our account to let us in. He did it because He loved us.
But never forget, "the wages of sin is death." Jesus Christ DIED because of our SIN. So Jesus' DEATH on the Cross is not the biggest day in History on GOD's Calendar. That is the day when Jesus Christ said, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me!" Nope! The biggest day on God's calendar is when Jesus Christ rules and reigns over the entire physical and spiritual creation. And that won't happen until Revelation 20:10ff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


That's because the main event IS in the future. You will never convince me that the "main event" of the Bible is when God the Son, Jesus Christ, was beaten, whipped, mocked, spit upon, and crucified naked by sinful wicked men.
Nope - that is NOT the "main event."
The main event is when Jesus Christ destroys Satan by casting him into a Lake of Fire forever, destroys this sin-riddled universe, creates a New Heaven, New Earth, and New Jerusalem in which there will be no Satan, sin, suffering, sorrow, etc.

THAT is the big day! The day when Jesus Christ is worshipped, adored, loved, honored and glorified universally, and then we sail off into eternity with HIM as the #1 item for the entire creation!

Now that doesn't mean the Cross is not important. It is important TO US because that is where we "get in." And Jesus Christ willingly suffered on our account to let us in. He did it because He loved us.
But never forget, "the wages of sin is death." Jesus Christ DIED because of our SIN. So Jesus' DEATH on the Cross is not the biggest day in History on GOD's Calendar. That is the day when Jesus Christ said, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me!" Nope! The biggest day on God's calendar is when Jesus Christ rules and reigns over the entire physical and spiritual creation. And that won't happen until Revelation 20:10ff.

Good points but I would also say that Resurrection Day was a great event when Christ defeated death and Satan. The victory was won at that time, what occurs in the future will be the mopping up from that victory. Eternity after that is something to eagerly look forward to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Steve: I agree with that to an extent. The Second Coming will be the biggest day, but it will be the consummation of what Jesus made possible on the cross. The glorious return of our Lord and Saviour, the utter defeat of satan, the judgment, destruction of the Earth, and the recreation of everything into a New Heaven and New Earth (if there's differing opinions on whether the NH&NE will be a totally separate creation, we can start another thread on that; let's not discuss it here) would all have been impossible if not for the cross. That is why the cross is the CENTRAL event in history. Though the second coming will be the biggest day we see, there was none spiritually as massive as the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. It was then that Jesus conquered death by death. It was then that He defeated the devil and the power of sin. Though He did not remove the presence of sin altogether, He secured its fate by His death and resurrection.

Most importantly, it is the cross in which God's glory in justice was most revealed. What was the destruction coming that we were saved from? It was the wrath of God, not the devil. Were God of a different nature, He could have dismissed our sin without the cross. Yet He did not because He is bound to His perfect character. Justice demands death for sin. But what defines justice and what defines God's perfect character? Is it not God? and if He defines it, does He do so passively by His essence, as we define some things by our essence and other things actively by thinking, or does God actively define even His own very essence, being the only being free to do so? So it is God who appointed the price of our redemption, and what a price it was! God had to die for sinners to be saved. In this we see that the cross was far more about God than it was about us. It was for more a display of His glory in justice than merely a means to save us, though it was not any less that.

(If the second paragraph didn't make sense, still read the third)

So the Second Coming will be big indeed, but it is no miracle that Jesus will come to judge, destroy, create, and reign. It will show His awesome power for the world to see, but the miracle that God would die for us and then rise again is far greater. On the last day, it will be a glorious day, as we will be saved from the effects and presence of sin and death, yet for all eternity we will marvel at the cross and that our God should die for us. The holes in His hands, feet, and side will be there for all eternity. And it is only through the cross that the Second Coming will be as glorious to us as it will be. To those who do not trust the Lord Jesus Christ, it will be a day of doom, darkness, and destruction.

Dispensationalism diminishes that by making the cross plan B, by suggesting that salvation could be attained by man in other dispensations apart from the cross of Jesus, by looking to a future redemption (not from their sin and the wrath of God, but merely physical oppression) of national Israel and by stating that plan A shall be resumed which is nothing more than a mere millennium of Jews living in physical Israel while achieving righteousness by no more than animal sacrifices and keeping of the law. That, my friends, is heresy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



"...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.


The 70 weeks were to accomplish 6 things,

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city
1. to finish the transgression,
2. and tomake an end of sins,
3. and to make reconciliation for iniquity,
4. and to bring in everlasting righteousness,
5. and to seal up the vision and prophecy,
6. and to anoint the most Holy.

The abomination of desolation doesn't figure in that, and Luke tells us it was the Roman Armies which were the abomination of desolation, which was already prophecied by our Lord, as a result of the Jews rejection of him.

1, Fulfilled by the jews when the crucified our Lord.
2. Fulfilled by the our Lord on the Cross.
3. Fulfilled by the our Lord on the Cross.
4. Fulfilled by the our Lord on the Cross.
5. Fulfilled by the our Lord at his baptism. Lu 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
6. Fulfilled by the our Lord at his baptism. What could be more holy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

@Steve: I agree with that to an extent. The Second Coming will be the biggest day, but it will be the consummation of what Jesus made possible on the cross. The glorious return of our Lord and Saviour, the utter defeat of satan, the judgment, destruction of the Earth, and the recreation of everything into a New Heaven and New Earth (if there's differing opinions on whether the NH&NE will be a totally separate creation, we can start another thread on that; let's not discuss it here) would all have been impossible if not for the cross. That is why the cross is the CENTRAL event in history. Though the second coming will be the biggest day we see, there was none spiritually as massive as the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. It was then that Jesus conquered death by death. It was then that He defeated the devil and the power of sin. Though He did not remove the presence of sin altogether, He secured its fate by His death and resurrection.

Most importantly, it is the cross in which God's glory in justice was most revealed. What was the destruction coming that we were saved from? It was the wrath of God, not the devil. Were God of a different nature, He could have dismissed our sin without the cross. Yet He did not because He is bound to His perfect character. Justice demands death for sin. But what defines justice and what defines God's perfect character? Is it not God? and if He defines it, does He do so passively by His essence, as we define some things by our essence and other things actively by thinking, or does God actively define even His own very essence, being the only being free to do so? So it is God who appointed the price of our redemption, and what a price it was! God had to die for sinners to be saved. In this we see that the cross was far more about God than it was about us. It was for more a display of His glory in justice than merely a means to save us, though it was not any less that.

(If the second paragraph didn't make sense, still read the third)

So the Second Coming will be big indeed, but it is no miracle that Jesus will come to judge, destroy, create, and reign. It will show His awesome power for the world to see, but the miracle that God would die for us and then rise again is far greater. On the last day, it will be a glorious day, as we will be saved from the effects and presence of sin and death, yet for all eternity we will marvel at the cross and that our God should die for us. The holes in His hands, feet, and side will be there for all eternity. And it is only through the cross that the Second Coming will be as glorious to us as it will be. To those who do not trust the Lord Jesus Christ, it will be a day of doom, darkness, and destruction.

Dispensationalism diminishes that by making the cross plan B, by suggesting that salvation could be attained by man in other dispensations apart from the cross of Jesus, by looking to a future redemption (not from their sin and the wrath of God, but merely physical oppression) of national Israel and by stating that plan A shall be resumed which is nothing more than a mere millennium of Jews living in physical Israel while achieving righteousness by no more than animal sacrifices and keeping of the law. That, my friends, is heresy.


Paragraphs 1,2,3 I can agree with to some degree or another - I understand what you are driving at....so I won't argue the point.
Paragraph 4 is completely unfair and untrue. Calvary was prophesied in the OT on several occasions (Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 are the best examples), so to accuse us of making it "plan B" is absured. The promise made to OT Israel was DUAL in nature. Jesus Christ preached TWO Kingdoms, not one. THe Kingdom of Heaven is a physical kingdom (Heaven is a creation, and includes the entire creation), while the Kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom (God is a Spirit John 4:24, Rom. 14:17).
The sacrifices offered in the OT were required by the Law given them to God. They had to do it. We can see by hindsight how Jesus Christ fulfilled all of those sacrifices, but they could not see it then. They were doing what God said, and if done by faith, trusting in the OT promises they had, then God would forgive them and "save" them.
But not even the 12 disciples understood the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and Jesus taught it to them personally!!! See Matthew 16:21-23 for one example!
The Holy Spirit taught this to the Apostles AFTER Christ's ascension (see JOhn 14:26, 16:13, etc.)
As far as the Millenial Reign of Christ, Israel is saved SPIRITUALLY AND PHYSICALLY. Politically speaking, they become the head of all nations. But it is more than political, because Jesus Christ will demand world-wide WORSHIP at the Temple! So there is a spiritual element to this "salvation" also. And yes, Ezekiel's temple - which is yet future - will have the animal sacrifices present, but not as a means of salvation. Salvation is in Christ. Those sacrifices will be done as a memorial for what has already been done!

The Cross is not a "plan B;" Israel's redemption is not physical and political ONLY; and the Millenial Sacrifices are memorial only!

So your argument is a very bad misrepresentation of our position!

(Nice try though anyway!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The 70 weeks were to accomplish 6 things,

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city
1. to finish the transgression,
2. and tomake an end of sins,
3. and to make reconciliation for iniquity,
4. and to bring in everlasting righteousness,
5. and to seal up the vision and prophecy,
6. and to anoint the most Holy.

The abomination of desolation doesn't figure in that, and Luke tells us it was the Roman Armies which were the abomination of desolation, which was already prophecied by our Lord, as a result of the Jews rejection of him.

1, Fulfilled by the jews when the crucified our Lord.
2. Fulfilled by the our Lord on the Cross.
3. Fulfilled by the our Lord on the Cross.
4. Fulfilled by the our Lord on the Cross.
5. Fulfilled by the our Lord at his baptism. Lu 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
6. Fulfilled by the our Lord at his baptism. What could be more holy?


Things that are not equal are not the same:
Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
Matthew 24:15 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:)

The only thing that matches here is the term "desolation." While there may be similarities between Luke 21 and Matthew 24, we must "rightly divide" the passages and notice the DIFFERENCES, instead of trying to cram those differences and make them into similarities. Remember, EVERY WORD of God is pure. We are never given the authority to change, alter, dismiss, or allegorize anything in Scripture.

Matthew 24 is clear. The "abomination of desolation" is a particular person who "stands in the holy place." Luke 21 is speaking of a different event. The Matthew 24 passage is matched by Daniel 9, II Thess. 2, and Revelation 13.

The entire Roman Army would not fit "in the holy place," no matter how much you might try to juggle things around to make it fit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If you take the passage by itself, here are the weaknesses of the two interpretations:

Non-Dispensationalists:

1. Spiritualize the promises to Israel that follow the 70th week and misapply them to the church.
2. Remove the Abomination of Desolation from the 70th week when it is in the text.


Dispensationalists:

1. Separates the 70th week from the other 69 weeks.


By weakness I mean that it makes it more difficult to explain. Both sides have their way of dealing with these two weaknesses, but I believe that the dispensationalist way of dealing with it leaves the rest of the Bible unscathed. The promises to Israel remain intact, 90% Revelation is read literally as is the Olivet prophecy, Romans 9 and 11 all work with it. The other side stands these things on their head when you buy into what they’re saying here.

If you were to line up the strengths of the two interpretations throughout all the rest of Scripture, side-by-side, I believe that the dispensational view of Eschatology is stronger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



Things that are not equal are not the same:
Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
Matthew 24:15 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:)

The only thing that matches here is the term "desolation." While there may be similarities between Luke 21 and Matthew 24, we must "rightly divide" the passages and notice the DIFFERENCES, instead of trying to cram those differences and make them into similarities. Remember, EVERY WORD of God is pure. We are never given the authority to change, alter, dismiss, or allegorize anything in Scripture.

Matthew 24 is clear. The "abomination of desolation" is a particular person who "stands in the holy place." Luke 21 is speaking of a different event. The Matthew 24 passage is matched by Daniel 9, II Thess. 2, and Revelation 13.

The entire Roman Army would not fit "in the holy place," no matter how much you might try to juggle things around to make it fit.


Absolute nonsense.

If you put all the verses of the three accounts side by side, you will see that they all refer to the same event, which shows that Matthew's "holy place" is Luke's "Jesrusalem" Read from Mark, rather that Matthew. It is more concise and contains all you need to understand the discourse.
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   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 15 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...