Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

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

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

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

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

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Gap (Daniel 11:33-35)


LindaR

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member




1. You charge us with insults, but overlook John's continued harassment against us with the charge of "Darbyism."
2. We do not - never have, and never will - JUSTIFY the persecution of the Jews. Genesis 12:3 is just as true today as it was in the day the Lord spoke the words directly to Abram. We do not condone the persecution - we are FOR Israel! However, Jesus Christ has allowed them to be persecuted because of their rejection of Him. Noting facts as they occur does not mean that we CONDONE them. There is a BIG difference.
3. You charge us with not answering your points, but Rick has done an excellent job posting our position earlier in the thread. True to Preterist form, everything he said was completely swept aside, and not dealt with. We HAVE answered you position...you just are not listening.

I have sought to answer ALL the points you have made. You are welcome to link to some you think I have not.

You & Rick have consistently evaded answering my where I showed a gap was totally unnecessary for a literal understanding of the 70 weeks as 490 years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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



I was not born yesterday, John. You are labeling us as "Darbyites" and dispensationalism as "Darbyism" as a derogatory tactic. Don't try to play games and be coy about it. You are putting Darby's name on it so that it would appear to be a man-made system, and thus condemn us. Two can play at that game....
I would remind you that your research is INCOMPLETE, and I gave you the reasons WHY it is incomplete. But as usual, you dismissed my argument out of hand, with no thought of attempting to verify what I said. So don't give me this stuff about "your research" and then continue on in the same line of reasoning as if nobody ever proved anything different. Take the fingers out of your ears, and try listening to those who know where they came from. Getting a sound history of Dispensationalism from someone who is opposed to dispensationalism is like asking Stephen Hawking to give us a history of Creationism.....the history will be distorted and perverted. I gave you the history of dispensationalism earlier, and you ignored it.
My advice is to STOP with the Darbyism claim, and STOP pretending that we are uneducated. This type of argumentation adds nothing to the discussion.
Show a little respect, please!

Now, what is dispensationalism, or who would be properly classified as a dispensationalist?
A dispensation is a period in time in which God dispenses His grace to us through His specified means during that period of time. Some people refer to these periods of time as "God's economy" for that period. You should read Ryrie's book for a better understanding of what we mean by "dispensation."
If you recognize a difference between the OT and the NT, then you are recognizing a difference between God's plan during those specific periods of time.
If you recognize a difference between the Garden of Eden and the times immediately following (pre-flood), then you are recognizing a difference between God's economy during those two specific time periods.
If you recognize the difference between God's dealing with man after the flood up until the OT Law was given, then you are recognizing that there was a difference between God's economy during the two specific time periods.
If you recognize a difference between this current Church age, and the coming Tribulation, and then the coming Millenial Kingdom, then you are admitting that God's economy changes during those times.

Now, maybe the changes are more subtle at times, and maybe there are some foundational prinicples which never change (i.e. FAITH), but we are not looking for SIMILARITIES as much as we are DIFFERENCES - something the preterists seem to abhor.
If you can recognize these differences, then you ARE a dispensationalist to some degree or another. And yes, John, we all know that there are varying forms of dispensational schemes out there. But if you understand what dispensationalism really is, then it is easier to understand why there are differences of opinion on the dispensations.
At the root of the discussion is this simple question: Do you recognize a difference between how God dealt with mankind during different periods of time? (such as Garden, pre-flood, post-flood, under the Law, After the Law, and future events?) If you do recognize those differences, then that is what dispensationalism is all about.

Aren't pastors supposed to be apt to teach?

You jump to all sorts of incorrect conclusions. Where is the proof dispensationalism was around prior to Darby? If my research is incomplete in this area, why not fill it in rather than make wild accusations and emotional outbursts. My research into this area has encompassed a wide variety of reading, including reading the works of more dispensationalists than non-dispensationalists. The vast majority of the dispensationalist readings I've looked into all pointed to Darby as the father of dispensationalism and didn't seem to have a problem with that.

I've found it interesting in my research that dispenstionalists don't agree upon the number of dispensations or even what each dispensation actually means. That hardly sounds biblically solid and yet each group stands by their version while denouncing the other versions.

I've yet to discover any more proof that dispensationalism stems from Scripture, through Christ, the apostles and on to us any more than I've found proof of the apostolic secession the RCC claims.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have sought to answer ALL the points you have made. You are welcome to link to some you think I have not.

You & Rick have consistently evaded answering my where I showed a gap was totally unnecessary for a literal understanding of the 70 weeks as 490 years.


You didn't say anything new in that post so there was no reason to address it. We are at an impasse; both sides have presented the evidence ad nauseam for their interpretation based on the text alone. There's nowhere left to go on the text by itself. The only place to go from here is to consider how the rest of the Bible must be interpreted as based upon the two views of the text.

I see them as follows:

1. You believe God is not sincere in His offers, I disagree.

2. You believe all the promises to the nation of Israel have been fulfilled or transferred to the church, I disagree.

3. You believe there is no future seven year Tribulation period, no future Antichrist, and that everything before Revelation 20 and all of Matthew 24 have been fulfilled completely, I disagree.

These are the supporting views to our different interpretations, and as such I don't see any middle ground. If someone takes up your view on the text they must by default take up the other supporting beliefs. Your view cannot stand without them, and neither can mine.

None of us have anything new to say on the text by itself, so there's nowhere to go there. On the above three points you have been skunked several times in the past, so there's nowhere to go there either.

Therefore, in all areas of this discussion there is nowhere to go. If you want to declare victory because some of us are getting bored, go ahead.

<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Steve
I was not born yesterday, John. You are labeling us as "Darbyites" and dispensationalism as "Darbyism" as a derogatory tactic. Don&amp;#39;t try to play games and be coy about it. You are putting Darby&amp;#39;s name on it so that it would appear to be a man-made system, and thus condemn us. Two can play at that game



I label you as Darbyites, or Scofieldites as they were the inventors of the system. Darby invented it, Scofield perfected it. There was no dispensationalism before Darby. The pretribulation rapture preceded Darby by a few years in the church of Edward Irving the leader of the Scottish and English pentecostal/charismatics at the time, late 1820s-early 1830s. Irving got his teaching from J. J. Ben Exzra, "A Converted Jew." but in fact a Jesuit priest writing under an assumed name. Irving taught himself Spanish in one month to be able to translate the book, so I don't expect his translation was all that accurate, although it might have as he would have had Latin and French, which you had to have to be educated in those days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Covenanter, on 01 March 2012 - 04:20 AM, said:

The disps on this forum have convincingly shown that they cannot deal with a simple, literal reading of Dan. 9 but resort to insults.

The whole point of the OP was to justify the persecution of the Jews on the basis of a colon. They could justify the persecution Christians on the same basis, for Christians are the true, believing Israel of God. Believing Jews are added to the Church, & are excluded from the Jewish community. Down the ages, we cannot know how many Christians are of Jewish descent.

I ask again, why should 100 generations of Jews be excluded from the covenant promises made to 1,000 generations?




Ian. A generation is usually reckoned to be about 40 years, so 100 generations would be 4.000 years and 1,000 generations, 40,000 years.

There were 42 generations from Abraham to Christ, Matt.1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Josephus says there were 88 high priests from Aaron till the last in AD70, and some of those only reigned a short time, one only a day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Aren't pastors supposed to be apt to teach?

You jump to all sorts of incorrect conclusions. Where is the proof dispensationalism was around prior to Darby? If my research is incomplete in this area, why not fill it in rather than make wild accusations and emotional outbursts. My research into this area has encompassed a wide variety of reading, including reading the works of more dispensationalists than non-dispensationalists. The vast majority of the dispensationalist readings I've looked into all pointed to Darby as the father of dispensationalism and didn't seem to have a problem with that.

I've found it interesting in my research that dispenstionalists don't agree upon the number of dispensations or even what each dispensation actually means. That hardly sounds biblically solid and yet each group stands by their version while denouncing the other versions.

I've yet to discover any more proof that dispensationalism stems from Scripture, through Christ, the apostles and on to us any more than I've found proof of the apostolic secession the RCC claims.

Yes I am a pastor, and my charge is to teach the church that God has called me to. That doesn't mean I am responsible for YOU. You are not a member of the church here, and don't attend here. But you are really interested in learning anyway, you just want to argue the point.

See, John, there you go again, at first pretending that you can be taught, and that you are interested in being "filled in."
And then in other places you brag about studying this topic for 30 years, and reading all of this dispensational material. Considering that you are so opposed to it, I only wonder why you would waste so much valuable time reading it if it is so wrong.

Again, you accuse me of "emotional outbursts" which sure sounds good ON SCREEN, but you would have a tough time proving it. There is no emotion here. And I have ALREADY EXPLAINED THAT, but you just don't seem to get it. I don't believe in playing games. I believe in "telling it like it is," and many people just can't handle the plain truth.

Then you pretend that there is no "Scriptural proof" that Dispensationalism is indeed a Scriptural teaching.
And you accuse ME of "emotional outbursts" and over-reacting???

If our system was not Scripturally sound, then why, pray tell, does our position encompass so much Scripture?
We are not picking one or two verses here and there and erecting a system of doctrine on it.
The RCC picks Matthew 16:18 and builds their entire church on it.
The JW's pick one or two privately interpretted verses from Ecclesiastes and then tell us there is no hell.
The MOrmons pick one verse from I Cor. 15 to get their idea about "baptism from the dead."

We are NOT doing that!

I gave you enough of a start on the history side of it in Posts #109 and #115. If you are as smart as you claim to be, you can go dig up some Baptist history books and study it out for yourself.

Ryrie states that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria held to some dispensational concepts.
Isaac Watts, David Bogue, Adam Clarke, and several others held to dispensational ideas long before Darby ever showed up.
As I mentioned before, the ideas and concepts were there prior to Darby. Darby may have systematized the ideas, and wrote particularly on this system of teaching, but that does not mean he "invented it." Certainly he played an important role in bringing it into the open, but that doesn't mean the ideas came exclusively from him. He took what he had learned from others, and put it all together for us.
He did not invent it, so just get over that.

If you really want to know more then get the book by David Walker entitled "The Bible Believer's Guide to Dispensationalism." It goes into the historical aspects of it.

Adios.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


I label you as Darbyites, or Scofieldites as they were the inventors of the system. Darby invented it, Scofield perfected it. There was no dispensationalism before Darby. The pretribulation rapture preceded Darby by a few years in the church of Edward Irving the leader of the Scottish and English pentecostal/charismatics at the time, late 1820s-early 1830s. Irving got his teaching from J. J. Ben Exzra, "A Converted Jew." but in fact a Jesuit priest writing under an assumed name. Irving taught himself Spanish in one month to be able to translate the book, so I don't expect his translation was all that accurate, although it might have as he would have had Latin and French, which you had to have to be educated in those days.

Strange - the Roman Catholic Church has placed a curse on anyone who holds to our position....
AND...
The official theological position of the RCC is the PRETERIST view!

HHHhhhmmmmm!

Adios
This topic is dead...we are only rehashing what has already been stated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


Yes I am a pastor, and my charge is to teach the church that God has called me to. That doesn't mean I am responsible for YOU. You are not a member of the church here, and don't attend here. But you are really interested in learning anyway, you just want to argue the point.

See, John, there you go again, at first pretending that you can be taught, and that you are interested in being "filled in."
And then in other places you brag about studying this topic for 30 years, and reading all of this dispensational material. Considering that you are so opposed to it, I only wonder why you would waste so much valuable time reading it if it is so wrong.

Again, you accuse me of "emotional outbursts" which sure sounds good ON SCREEN, but you would have a tough time proving it. There is no emotion here. And I have ALREADY EXPLAINED THAT, but you just don't seem to get it. I don't believe in playing games. I believe in "telling it like it is," and many people just can't handle the plain truth.

Then you pretend that there is no "Scriptural proof" that Dispensationalism is indeed a Scriptural teaching.
And you accuse ME of "emotional outbursts" and over-reacting???

If our system was not Scripturally sound, then why, pray tell, does our position encompass so much Scripture?
We are not picking one or two verses here and there and erecting a system of doctrine on it.
The RCC picks Matthew 16:18 and builds their entire church on it.
The JW's pick one or two privately interpretted verses from Ecclesiastes and then tell us there is no hell.
The MOrmons pick one verse from I Cor. 15 to get their idea about "baptism from the dead."

We are NOT doing that!

I gave you enough of a start on the history side of it in Posts #109 and #115. If you are as smart as you claim to be, you can go dig up some Baptist history books and study it out for yourself.

Ryrie states that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria held to some dispensational concepts.
Isaac Watts, David Bogue, Adam Clarke, and several others held to dispensational ideas long before Darby ever showed up.
As I mentioned before, the ideas and concepts were there prior to Darby. Darby may have systematized the ideas, and wrote particularly on this system of teaching, but that does not mean he "invented it." Certainly he played an important role in bringing it into the open, but that doesn't mean the ideas came exclusively from him. He took what he had learned from others, and put it all together for us.
He did not invent it, so just get over that.

If you really want to know more then get the book by David Walker entitled "The Bible Believer's Guide to Dispensationalism." It goes into the historical aspects of it.

Adios.

I'm thankful our pastor doesn't take this sort of attitude with brothers/sisters in Christ who are not in our church.

Apparently talking with Rick or others would be more beneficial since you are unwilling or unable to rightly do so. In nearly every post you have made towards me you have come to wrong conclusion and made wrong statements because you apparently have some preconcieved idea of how everyone else is thinking. Sorry to inform you, but you are way off base and unbiblical in your approach.

Being American, I'll say good-bye.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



You didn't say anything new in that post so there was no reason to address it. We are at an impasse; both sides have presented the evidence ad nauseam for their interpretation based on the text alone. There's nowhere left to go on the text by itself. The only place to go from here is to consider how the rest of the Bible must be interpreted as based upon the two views of the text.

I see them as follows:

1. You believe God is not sincere in His offers, I disagree.

2. You believe all the promises to the nation of Israel have been fulfilled or transferred to the church, I disagree.

3. You believe there is no future seven year Tribulation period, no future Antichrist, and that everything before Revelation 20 and all of Matthew 24 have been fulfilled completely, I disagree.

These are the supporting views to our different interpretations, and as such I don't see any middle ground. If someone takes up your view on the text they must by default take up the other supporting beliefs. Your view cannot stand without them, and neither can mine.

None of us have anything new to say on the text by itself, so there's nowhere to go there. On the above three points you have been skunked several times in the past, so there's nowhere to go there either.

Therefore, in all areas of this discussion there is nowhere to go. If you want to declare victory because some of us are getting bored, go ahead.

<_<

I actually see room for common ground in some of what you have said, perhaps in another thread we will have the opportunity to discuss this in more depth. I agree with you that this particular thread seems to have run its course.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'm thankful our pastor doesn't take this sort of attitude with brothers/sisters in Christ who are not in our church.

Apparently talking with Rick or others would be more beneficial since you are unwilling or unable to rightly do so. In nearly every post you have made towards me you have come to wrong conclusion and made wrong statements because you apparently have some preconcieved idea of how everyone else is thinking. Sorry to inform you, but you are way off base and unbiblical in your approach.

Being American, I'll say good-bye.

THis could all be avoided if you would stop the childish labelling of "Darbyism." I am willing to teach those who are willing to listen...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I need to reply to this - not for Rick & Steve - but to correct the false statements being made for the benefit of those genuinely interested in the discussion.




You didn't say anything new in that post so there was no reason to address it.
I did show that the 70 weeks prophecy needed no gaps - not 2,000 years nor 40 years if we simply read it as true & authoritative Scripture. Rick claimed that Jesus' reference to Daniel's prophecy in Mat. 24:15 is to Dan. 9. It isn't - it's Dan. 11. The reference to Dan. 9 is in Mat. 23. He doesn't understand the obvious difference between singular & plural abominations. Jesus has specified the abominations in Mat. 23 before declaring the house desolate.
15
When ye therefore shall see
the abomination
of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

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


Dan. 11:
31
And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place
the abomination
that maketh desolate.


Dan 9:
27
And he shall confirm the covena
nt
with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the
ob
lation to cease, and for
the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate
, even u
nt
il the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


Mat. 23:
38
Behold, your house is left u
nt
o you desolate.


We are at an impasse; both sides have presented the evidence ad nauseam for their interpretation based on the text alone.

There's nowhere left to go on the text by itself. The only place to go from here is to consider how the rest of the Bible must be interpreted as based upon the two views of the text.

I see them as follows:

1. You believe God is not sincere in His offers, I disagree.
Not true - I maintain that God's promises are faithfully fulfilled in Christ to all believers - Jew & Gentile as the redeemed people of God. Rick teaches that God's promises to 1,000 generations do not apply to the 100 generations between Calvary & the second coming, & that then many of the Jews who returned to the land ready for Messiah will be slaughtered. (OK Invicta, 25-30 & counting).

2. You believe all the promises to the nation of Israel have been fulfilled or transferred to the church, I disagree.I believe all the promises to Israel are fulfilled in Christ & only in Christ, with the Gentiles being counted in. Complete fulfilment will only be in the NH&NE, not some half-way house millennium where everything goes wrong again.

3. You believe there is no future seven year Tribulation period, - you're right there - no future Antichrist, - just many antichrists - and that everything before Revelation 20 - we haven't discussed Revelation thoroughly, but much clearly refers to events before AD 70 - e.g. the destruction in Rev. 11; & Rev. 20 is a reiteration of Rev.19 - and all of Matthew 24 - only up to v. 34 (this generation), the rest is instruction for everyone until the Lord returns - have been fulfilled completely, I disagree.

These are the supporting views to our different interpretations, and as such I don't see any middle ground. If someone takes up your view on the text they must by default take up the other supporting beliefs. Your view cannot stand without them, and neither can mine.

None of us have anything new to say on the text by itself, so there's nowhere to go there. On the above three points you have been skunked several times in the past, so there's nowhere to go there either.
I don't understand your American expletives, but I assume you are being offensive. I recommend you junk the Scofield Kool-Aid - it's poisoning many more than the Jones-town victims.

Therefore, in all areas of this discussion there is nowhere to go. If you want to declare victory because some of us are getting bored, go ahead.
I'm not interested in personal victory, but the truth of the Word of God. I'll just add our Lord's command for all the generations between Olivet & his glorious return:
Mark 13:
31
Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall n
ot
pass away.

32
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, n
ot
the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

33
Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know n
ot
when the time is.

34
For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his serva
nt
s, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.

35
Watch ye therefore: for ye know n
ot
when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:

36
Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.

37
And what I say u
nt
o you I say u
nt
o all, Watch.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


THis could all be avoided if you would stop the childish labelling of "Darbyism." I am willing to teach those who are willing to listen...

I'm sorry you take offense to the term Darbyism. I've spoke with many dispensationalists and they not only have no problem with the term Darbyism, some use it themselves. The two are often used interchangably so the only childishness involved here is possibly your reaction to the term.

I've read every post put forth and asked questions in an attempt to learn yet you seem more interested in jumping to wrong conclusions about others intentions or reinterpreting their clear statements to mean something not intended at all.

The way you have responded in most of your posts gives one the impression you are very insecure in your position. This may not be the case, but in most cases when one responds in the manner you have it's an indication their viewpoint isn't as solid as they would like.

I certainly hope you aren't so wrongly judgemental of those who ask you questions in person. In any case, you have utterly failed to provide any compelling evidence dispensationalism is biblical. That is not to say that some of the conclusions dispensationalists eventually come to in regard to other matters may not hold some validity, but as to dispensationalism itself, no biblical foundation has been established.

That said, I remain open to learning, but like the Bereans, I'm going to study all things (whether dispensationalism, end times, baptism or anything else) presented in the light of Scripture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Just when I thought I was done with this thread....

Ian said:

I did show that the 70 weeks prophecy needed no gaps - not 2,000 years nor 40 years if we simply read it as true & authoritative Scripture. Rick claimed that Jesus' reference to Daniel's prophecy in Mat. 24:15 is to Dan. 9. It isn't - it's Dan. 11. The reference to Dan. 9 is in Mat. 23. He doesn't understand the obvious difference between singular & plural abominations. Jesus has specified the abominations in Mat. 23 before declaring the house desolate.
15When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)16Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Dan. 11: 31And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

Dan 9:27And 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.

Mat. 23:38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.


Thanks for putting the Daniel 11 passage in there; it actually helps my case more than yours. Jesus claims that Daniel's abomination of desolation is future from when Jesus mentioned it; we both agree on that, so it's not Antiochus Epiphanies or someone like that. I'm pretty sure you put it with the high priest or someone, and you have it happening at or before 70 A.D.

You've already committed to the fact that Daniel 11 is a reference to the A of D, but that creates some problems for you:

1. Daniel 11 has the abomination of desolation happening at the same time that the daily sacrifices are taken away, which ties in exactly my interpretation of Daniel 9.

Dan. 11:31, "And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate."

2. It's not Jesus taking away the sacrifice here, it's "him," a person. As in the prince that shall come, the Antichrist. That ties in perfectly.

Daniel 11:30-32, "For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.
31) And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
32) And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits."

The holy covenant here is the New Covenant. While as Jews inwardly we do get in on it to some degree, the New Covenant is spoken of in Hebrews as being for the Jews as a nation and that the day will come when the nation as a whole will get a new heart, etc. Here we have a man going after people who are adherents to the holy covenant, and then he takes away a daily sacrifice, setting up the abomination of desolation.

let me reiterate: the person who is taking away the daily sacrifice here is the same person who:

1. Is angry with holy covenant and works against it.
2. Cooperates with those that work against the holy covenant and flatters and deceives them.
3. Sets up the abomination of desolation.

This is not God confirming a covenant for seven years and then the Messiah being crucified half way through to end the sacrifices. It’s the Antichrist working against the people of God and trying to wipe out the Jews. From my understanding the first half of Daniel 11 is historical and has been fulfilled, but when Daniel changes channels, so to speak, and mentions the Abomination of Desolation, the rest of the chapter is a perfect description of the future Son of Perdition mentioned by Paul. If I were you, I'd stay as far away from Daniel 11 as I could, it all ties in with Daniel 9 being exactly what we've been saying it is this whole time.

In other words, once again, the abomination of desolation (Matthew 24, Revelation 13) does in fact occur within the 70th week, and it is the Roman prince that shall come (the Antichrist) that confirms the covenant for seven years and then take away the daily sacrifice and declares himself to be God (I Thess. 2) half way through.

I would encourage the reader to check out for more on this.



Ian also said:

I maintain that God's promises are faithfully fulfilled in Christ to all believers - Jew & Gentile as the redeemed people of God. Rick teaches that God's promises to 1,000 generations do not apply to the 100 generations between Calvary & the second coming, & that then many of the Jews who returned to the land ready for Messiah will be slaughtered. (OK Invicta, 25-30 & counting).


Who said anything about God's promises to believers? That's not what I was talking about. Of course we both believe that God keeps His promises, I think we both do at least. You might not believe in Eternal Security, which is a whole other can of worms, but if you don't then you don't think God keeps His promises either.

Regardless, I said you don't believe God's invitations are sincere. If God offers something, I believe He is fully capable of allowing a person to take Him up on the offer, and that He is fully capable and willing to keep His side of the offer. God offered the Messiah to Israel, and I believe that God was sincere in that offer. You believe God offered the Messiah, but at the same time predestined Israel to reject Him. That would mean you believe God is not always sincere when He offers things.

As far as the thousand generations thing, that doesn't prove anything on your part. I believe, sometimes to the chagrin of my friends on this side of the room, that there is such a thing as a "spiritual Israel," and that is what this is talking about. It is those that are "Jews inwardly," it is the spiritual side of the New Covenant which comes to us as being of the spiritual seed of Abraham. This is why many of the things in the Old Testament do apply to us when they are speaking of spiritual promises to the children of Israel. God keeping His covenant and mercies for a thousand generations (40,000 -100,000 years) is very true, and will go on throughout the New Heavens and New Earth while natural human beings reproduce and glorify God.

Anyways, I'll probably be checking out now.

I'm having tacos tonight, that should be awesome.

I really like tacos. Do you like tacos, Ian?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Rick wrote

You've already committed to the fact that Daniel 11 is a reference to the A of D, but that creates some problems for you:

1. Daniel 11 has the abomination of desolation happening at the same time that the daily sacrifices are taken away, which ties in exactly my interpretation of Daniel 9.

Dan. 11:31, "And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate."

2. It's not Jesus taking away the sacrifice here, it's "him," a person. As in the prince that shall come, the Antichrist. That ties in perfectly.

Daniel 11:30-32, "For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.
31) And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
32) And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits."


Agreed, the abomination of desolation was in place at the time the sacrifice was taken away. The Roman armies were surrounding Jerusalem at the time the sacrifice failed. The Jews saw the armies surrounding Jerusalem. (When you see....) The Roman armies were a pagan abomination. Jerusalem was made desolate by them.

You also said 2. It's not Jesus taking away the sacrifice here, it's "him," a person. As in the prince that shall come, the Antichrist. That ties in perfectly. Actually it does not say him, it says they. In verse 30, we have the ships of Chittim, the Romans, coming against him, Antiochus, when he was attempting to conquer Egypt. The Roman general drew a line in the sand in front of him and ordered him not to cross it He, Antiochus, was agrieved and returned to Jerusalem and took it out on the Jews.

and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. They could apply to Antiochus and the Romans, however as the abomination is singular and was still in the future when Jesus mentioned it, it could only apply to the Romans. As Luke mentions "armies" the "arns" in Daniel must refer to the Roman arms.

The abomination was not one of the items mentioned in Dan. 9:24, so did not have to take place in any of the seventy weeks, but was a concequence of the events that were included.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Just when I thought I was done with this thread....

Ian said:

I did show that the 70 weeks prophecy needed no gaps - not 2,000 years nor 40 years if we simply read it as true & authoritative Scripture. Rick claimed that Jesus' reference to Daniel's prophecy in Mat. 24:15 is to Dan. 9. It isn't - it's Dan. 11. The reference to Dan. 9 is in Mat. 23. He doesn't understand the obvious difference between singular & plural abominations. Jesus has specified the abominations in Mat. 23 before declaring the house desolate.
15When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)16Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Dan. 11: 31And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

Dan 9:27And 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.

Mat. 23:38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.


Thanks for putting the Daniel 11 passage in there; it actually helps my case more than yours. Jesus claims that Daniel's abomination of desolation is future from when Jesus mentioned it; we both agree on that, so it's not Antiochus Epiphanies or someone like that. I'm pretty sure you put it with the high priest or someone, and you have it happening at or before 70 A.D.

You've already committed to the fact that Daniel 11 is a reference to the A of D, but that creates some problems for you:

1. Daniel 11 has the abomination of desolation happening at the same time that the daily sacrifices are taken away, which ties in exactly my interpretation of Daniel 9.

Dan. 11:31, "And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate."

2. It's not Jesus taking away the sacrifice here, it's "him," a person. As in the prince that shall come, the Antichrist. That ties in perfectly.

Daniel 11:30-32, "For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.
31) And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
32) And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits."

The holy covenant here is the New Covenant. While as Jews inwardly we do get in on it to some degree, the New Covenant is spoken of in Hebrews as being for the Jews as a nation and that the day will come when the nation as a whole will get a new heart, etc. Here we have a man going after people who are adherents to the holy covenant, and then he takes away a daily sacrifice, setting up the abomination of desolation.

let me reiterate: the person who is taking away the daily sacrifice here is the same person who:

1. Is angry with holy covenant and works against it.
2. Cooperates with those that work against the holy covenant and flatters and deceives them.
3. Sets up the abomination of desolation.

This is not God confirming a covenant for seven years and then the Messiah being crucified half way through to end the sacrifices. It’s the Antichrist working against the people of God and trying to wipe out the Jews. From my understanding the first half of Daniel 11 is historical and has been fulfilled, but when Daniel changes channels, so to speak, and mentions the Abomination of Desolation, the rest of the chapter is a perfect description of the future Son of Perdition mentioned by Paul. If I were you, I'd stay as far away from Daniel 11 as I could, it all ties in with Daniel 9 being exactly what we've been saying it is this whole time.

In other words, once again, the abomination of desolation (Matthew 24, Revelation 13) does in fact occur within the 70th week, and it is the Roman prince that shall come (the Antichrist) that confirms the covenant for seven years and then take away the daily sacrifice and declares himself to be God (I Thess. 2) half way through.

I would encourage the reader to check out for more on this.



Ian also said:

I maintain that God's promises are faithfully fulfilled in Christ to all believers - Jew & Gentile as the redeemed people of God. Rick teaches that God's promises to 1,000 generations do not apply to the 100 generations between Calvary & the second coming, & that then many of the Jews who returned to the land ready for Messiah will be slaughtered. (OK Invicta, 25-30 & counting).


Who said anything about God's promises to believers? That's not what I was talking about. Of course we both believe that God keeps His promises, I think we both do at least. You might not believe in Eternal Security, which is a whole other can of worms, but if you don't then you don't think God keeps His promises either.

Regardless, I said you don't believe God's invitations are sincere. If God offers something, I believe He is fully capable of allowing a person to take Him up on the offer, and that He is fully capable and willing to keep His side of the offer. God offered the Messiah to Israel, and I believe that God was sincere in that offer. You believe God offered the Messiah, but at the same time predestined Israel to reject Him. That would mean you believe God is not always sincere when He offers things.

As far as the thousand generations thing, that doesn't prove anything on your part. I believe, sometimes to the chagrin of my friends on this side of the room, that there is such a thing as a "spiritual Israel," and that is what this is talking about. It is those that are "Jews inwardly," it is the spiritual side of the New Covenant which comes to us as being of the spiritual seed of Abraham. This is why many of the things in the Old Testament do apply to us when they are speaking of spiritual promises to the children of Israel. God keeping His covenant and mercies for a thousand generations (40,000 -100,000 years) is very true, and will go on throughout the New Heavens and New Earth while natural human beings reproduce and glorify God.

Anyways, I'll probably be checking out now.

I'm having tacos tonight, that should be awesome.

I really like tacos. Do you like tacos, Ian?

While I find some agreement with you here, I still don't see where God indicates the 70 weeks are anything but literal. I'll continue to study this but even though some things don't necessarily seem to fit, I don't see where God indicates the 70 weeks itself is anything but literal. How can it be called 70 weeks when it's actually hundreds of weeks? Why are the first 69 weeks literal and yet we are to see the 70th weeks as not literally following the other 69 even though God doesn't say that?

As to some other apsects, we could probably find agreement.

To clarify, what do you mean by natural human beings reproducing throughout the New Heaven and New Earth? Isn't that something that's only supposed to happen during the thousand years?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member


THis could all be avoided if you would stop the childish labelling of "Darbyism." I am willing to teach those who are willing to listen...


You object to being labelled a Darbyist because you follow the man made teachings of Darby, yet those of us who believe the bible's teaching on predestination are labelled Calvinists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I do know a former pastor who thought that the AofD was in the seventy weeks, but to get that, he said that the 70th week was one of unknown duration, known only to God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'm sorry you take offense to the term Darbyism. I've spoke with many dispensationalists and they not only have no problem with the term Darbyism, some use it themselves. The two are often used interchangably so the only childishness involved here is possibly your reaction to the term.

I've read every post put forth and asked questions in an attempt to learn yet you seem more interested in jumping to wrong conclusions about others intentions or reinterpreting their clear statements to mean something not intended at all.

The way you have responded in most of your posts gives one the impression you are very insecure in your position. This may not be the case, but in most cases when one responds in the manner you have it's an indication their viewpoint isn't as solid as they would like.

I certainly hope you aren't so wrongly judgemental of those who ask you questions in person. In any case, you have utterly failed to provide any compelling evidence dispensationalism is biblical. That is not to say that some of the conclusions dispensationalists eventually come to in regard to other matters may not hold some validity, but as to dispensationalism itself, no biblical foundation has been established.

That said, I remain open to learning, but like the Bereans, I'm going to study all things (whether dispensationalism, end times, baptism or anything else) presented in the light of Scripture.


Look, I know a lot of Baptists who believe the Baptists as a denomination started in the 1500's or 1600's. I disagree with that idea based upon the history I have read from several sources, sometimes from sources who are anti-Baptist. I can have grace with these people though since they are only repeating what they have heard. If I get the opportunity, I will give them a different perspective of Baptist History, and explain my side of the story, based upon the information I have come across. Generally speaking, they will take this new information ("new" to them!), and either be more considerate in my presence, or go do some digging themselves.
The people you have spoken to who accept the term "Darbyism" as appropriate simply do not know their history. I do not fault them for that - I fault their teachers.
I lay no blame at your feet for repeating that label, because, after all, it is repeated throughout most IFB circles, even by dispensationalists.
That does not mean that the label is correct or accurate. Remember, to the victors go the spoils. Within Christianity as a whole, Dispensationalists hold a very small minority. Therefore the opponents to Dispensationalism have all the tools to dismantle and discredit our system, with little fear of reprisals, corrections, or rebukes. They control the playing field. Unfortunately, just as many Baptists lost sight of their true history and heritage, so have many of the leading dispensationalists, and they have accepted the label "Darbyism" and the false history.

So I don't BLAME you for throwing that label out. However, after I take pains to correct you, and offer a reason for not accepting that label, my expectation is that you would take that into consideration, and then either ask more questions about WHY I don't accept that term, or question your own research, or try to find different sources, or (preferably) all of the above.
You didn't do that...you just kept repeating the same label.....as if I had said nothing.
I do not expect everyone to agree with me on everything - especially on these difficult subjects.
However, I don't like to be ignored either, and that is exactly how I feel you have treated me in regards to this "Darbyism" stuff.
I can have patience with that, but when I have offered an alternative view to that name, and even supplied my source, and even given you a broader definition of "dispensationalism" you continue to throw that name out there.
Well, using the term "Darbyism" is in fact a derogatory term for Dispensationalism that implies that this Scriptural system of interpretting Scripture is a man-made system. It is not. Our system is built upon the Scriptures. I have already demonstrated that our approach to Scripture is nothing like the RCC, JW's. Mormons, etc. We don't take one verse and build some kooky cult out of it, as they do.

You say that you put forth your questions "in an attempt to learn," and I say "learn what?"
You are very decidely AGAINST dispensationalism - you can't hide that. In fact, on the other thread you state it quite clearly.
So I really don't know what it is that you are "attempting to learn" since you dismiss our answers very quickly and state your answer after you slam dispensationalism.

It is not my intention to be mean to you on a personal level.
As far as how I respond to other people - that is between me and the Lord. The Lord rebukes me when I am wrong, but I have been rough with some people, and they needed it, and the Lord didn't rebuke me for it either.

Pr 26:4 ¶ Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pr 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

There is a time to be patient, gracious, kind, gentle, etc....
And there is a time when a sledgehammer is appropriate.

So don't try to label me as "insecure" or "arrogant" or any of that nonsense. If I am not sure about something, I keep my mouth shut.
I would not participate in these threads if I was NOT sure of my position.
So, AGAIN, you are imposing YOUR emotion and YOUR assumptions into my posts. It is unwise to do so.
I do not fit ANY molds, stereotypes, etc. I have been married for 16 years, and my wife STILL has not figured me out completely. I don't fit any of the "corporate molds" for my company. I can get away with things at my job that most people would never DREAM of doing.
I can't explain it, but I am the Maverick. I don't fit into any of the typical "categories."
I am not angry - I am passionate and forceful.
I am not insecure - I am extremely secure on the things I speak about. In fact, I am absolutely dogmatic about it.
I am not "judgmental" - I am extremely intuitive about people and what they are up to, and where they are headed. Yes, my intuition is sometimes wrong, and I am cautious about it, but 98% of the time, it is dead on. (I speak as a fool...I am only attempting to help you understand where I am coming from....) The problem is that I can typically spot a fakir a mile away, and rat them out before they can stir up any mischief....and they HATE that. (I am not accusing you of being a fakir...again, insight.)
I am not proud or arrogant - I am confident of my gifts, and cognizant of my weaknesses. I use my gifts to the best of my abilities for maximum results, and try to shore up or protect myself from exposing my weaknesses (which I am not good at!) As Paul said, "By the grace of God I am what I am..." (I Cor. 15:10)
I AM a reactionary - I have a tendency to react instead of respond....and that does get me into trouble sometimes, but I am working on it....as bad as I am about this now, I was much worse in times past (having a good wife helps!)

As far "utterly failing" to provide Scriptural proof for dispensationalism:
1. I was not trying to prove the system as a whole, only offer my insight on the passages in question
2. You rejected dispensationalism a long time ago, and I don't think anyone can change your mind about it. So why pretend to be "open" about it, when you really are not?

Just askin!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I've found no reason to believe dispensationalism is biblical or the concept existed prior to Darby. As I've studied the concept of dispensationalsim comes up as beginning with Darby, as even many of his contemporaries attest. At the time Darby put forth his ideas of dispensationalism virtually all conservative pastors/churches rejected what they called a new and unbiblical teaching. It was only a few of the liberal pastors/churches who accepted this, most of them being of the Brethren. Further study indicates the idea of dispensationalism didn't really catch on in any broad manner, or outside the more liberal churches, until Scofield adopted the idea and incorporated it into his study Bible. Of course Scofield also incorporated an evolutionistic gap in the creation account too.

At the same time, I've also studied the history of Baptists. While some new Baptists came out of the Reformation, even many of them came about because of the existence of Baptists prior to the Reformation. At least several hundred years prior to the Reformation there were Baptists, as even is evident by the writings of some in the RCC who had spent those years persecuting Baptists. Prior to that, there is no direct evidence of any Christians known as Baptists, but there is some possible evidence to show where Christians known by other names earlier on were among those who eventually came to be known as Baptist. There is room for debate on some matters between those Christians from the time of the Apostles to the time when some were actually known as Baptists, but there is no room for debate as to whether or not there were Baptists prior to the Reformation.

Now, I point this out, per your example, as an example of how my own studies have progressed from not knowing Baptists had been around that long to studying the evidence and learning they have. At the same time, I've also studied dispensationalism and as I've mentioned, I've not found proof of it prior to Darby.

When I study a subject or topic I study to see where the evidence leads, not to prove something is or isn't true. Thus far, as stated above, I've found the evidence proves Baptists existed prior to the Reformation, but I've not found proof that dispensationalism existed prior to Darby.

That said, in yet another post you jump to wrong conclusions and fail to take the opportunity to teach, if you have anything to teach in this area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

before the reformation I cannot find they were called Baptists.

They were called Paulicians, Cathari, Publinani, Albigenses, Bogomils, Waldensians, Pauvre, Humiliati, Petrobrussians, and other names. Justin Martyr mentions Baptism. Even Rome's ambassador who converted England to RCism, Augustine, I call him Austin, (which was probably how it was pronounced) to distinguish hime from the other Augustine, practised baptism. Austin baptised 10,000, we read, in the Swale in Kent, including the king of Kent, and another 10,000 in the river Swale in Yorkshire, including the king of Northumbria. 10,000 seems somewhat doubtful as when I seen the number in Roman numerals, it was XM which acording to my understanding is 990.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

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

    • Mark C went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Razor earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...