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 Bible Only?


DaveW

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

How can there be seven trumpts sounding during the tribulation AFTER the LAST trump is sounded when the rapture takes place at the beginning of the tribulation?  How many "Last" trumpets can there be?

 

Ukelemike, I studied prophecy back in 1998.  I am very rusty.  The "catching away" caught my attention.  I don't understand where you are going with this scripture.  It sounds like a twist of words on the subject.  Like I said, I spoke with my IFB church in Bible study and prayer, one Wednesday night, and told my brothers and sisters in Christ, that I knew of an IFB who didn't believe in a pre-trib "rapture."  My pastor was shocked, especially when I said he was an IFB preacher.

All posts like this due is fuel the Calvinists with their warped theology on preterism.  Sometimes, I have to wonder if I am still on an IFB site.  It is totally confusing.  

I feel like a gerbil on a treadmill.  OB, with it's varying opinions, make me so thankful that I attend a strong IFB church and can fellowship with like-minded believers.  I am also not the only one who feels this way.  Many former OB members are on Facebook and have no desire to come back to OB.

Like I stated, I don't have a prOBlem with people who come on OB from different faiths to learn more about the word of God.  What I do mind is people who constantly promote false doctrine like "replacement theology" and nothing is done about it.  It appears they have now formed a little group, for moral support, and are thriving b/c their heresy has been accepted.  I will no longer talk about the "rapture" as it does nothing but cause prOBlems.  You believe what you believe and I will hold to the position that I have held since 1998.  :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Lady Administrators

Forums are places of discussion. And a variety of views will be presented because there are a variety of people on them.  Who look at scripture in a variety of ways.   There have been IFB for years who have believed in mid-trib and post-trib raptures, as well as pre-trib (the predominant view) and double raptures (pre- and mid-).  I'm not really surprised by much that people believe - especially IFB

 

In one of my college classes, we were discussing prophecy.  The president of this college was a good friend of Ian Paisley's, but did not agree with him on prophecy and infant baptism.  Paisley is a mid-tribber.  Anyway, the teacher in that class was showing us why Paisley was wrong in his trib beliefs - using the verses IP uses.  As we walked out of that class, I told another student that if I weren't convinced in my own mind in a pre-trib rapture, it would have been easy to sway me to believe in a mid-trib rapture.  That was absolutely not the effect the teacher was going for, but it was a result of looking at scripture the way a mid-tribber does.

 

That said: we all need to be convinced in our minds and hearts of what we believe, and it has to be grounded totally in scripture - rightly divided.  If we are not, a forum can simply mess us up.  And, while we are convinced in our own minds, if we are to be biblical, we must refrain from the type of confrontation that is conflict for the purpose of conflict (which many often use and claim it to be a defense of the "faith"). 

 

Verses can be applied in a variety of ways, prompting a variety of beliefs around that same topic.  Is it heresy?  Well, we need to be careful of flinging that word around. It's been applied on the forum lately like a battering ram.  Folks who don't agree with other folks on one little thing claim the others are heretics.  And vice versa.  Yes, there is real heresy presented at times.  But often the label is given because the labeler can't think of any other way to erm, uh - undermine the other person's point of view. We all want to be right (and I always am... :nuts:  :nuts: NOT!). But that doesn't make anyone who disagrees with us heretics.

 
 
And before I'm accused of moral relativism, just stop and think about what I've said, folks.  Jesus tells us "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."  Yes, I know. Some folks think that blasting at others to browbeat or sarcasm them into agreement is defense of the faith and thereby love.  But it isn't. We can be firm without being OBnoxious...
 
Look at some of the things that have been thrown around the forum lately.  Some of the wording, attitude, etc.  Some adults on here sound like children.  And I guarantee that you wouldn't allow your children to speak to each other in that manner. Well, not if you're a good parent, anyway. But it's justified on here in the name of defending the faith... Look at that verse again.  "Love one to another." 
 
Not for another. TO.  We can have love for someone and treat them awful.  As has been done multiple times on this forum of late.  OR we can be active and proactive and OBey scripture.  TO is an active preposition, for is not.
 
Let's show love to one another. Yes, be firm in your stance.  Support your position with scripture.  But do it scripturally and not like a recalcitrant child would do.
 
It's not my intention to ruffle feathers, but if I have, so be it.  
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Ukelemike, I studied prophecy back in 1998.  I am very rusty.  The "catching away" caught my attention.  I don't understand where you are going with this scripture.  It sounds like a twist of words on the subject.  Like I said, I spoke with my IFB church in Bible study and prayer, one Wednesday night, and told my brothers and sisters in Christ, that I knew of an IFB who didn't believe in a pre-trib "rapture."  My pastor was shocked, especially when I said he was an IFB preacher.

All posts like this due is fuel the Calvinists with their warped theology on preterism.  Sometimes, I have to wonder if I am still on an IFB site.  It is totally confusing.  

I feel like a gerbil on a treadmill.  OB, with it's varying opinions, make me so thankful that I attend a strong IFB church and can fellowship with like-minded believers.  I am also not the only one who feels this way.  Many former OB members are on Facebook and have no desire to come back to OB.

Like I stated, I don't have a prOBlem with people who come on OB from different faiths to learn more about the word of God.  What I do mind is people who constantly promote false doctrine like "replacement theology" and nothing is done about it.  It appears they have now formed a little group, for moral support, and are thriving b/c their heresy has been accepted.  I will no longer talk about the "rapture" as it does nothing but cause prOBlems.  You believe what you believe and I will hold to the position that I have held since 1998.   :)

I can appreciate where you are, Candlelight. I held to the pre-tribulation position since the early days of the 1970's.  But even then, there were aspects to it that mildly bugged me, things it seemed were being kind of pushed to the side and never dealt with.

 

You know what? I am going to start a psot in this-not to fight or to try and convince anyone of my position, but more to lay out my journey, if you will, to being where I am today, very IFB, but particularly happy about the "I" (independent) part of the title. I will title it, "Why I Left Pre-Trib" or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

HC, so you don't believe that "Replacement Theology" is heresy?  I have said this before, but I feel like I am back in the RCC with the Calvinists on this site.  And, they DO NOT know how to "rightly divide the word of truth."  They should be labeled as heretics, b/c they are spewing false doctrine, from the depths of hell.  Yet, they continue to get away with this garbage on an IFB site and the rest of us are told that we are being contentious?  There is something seriously wrong with that.  Not only do former IFB's on Facebook not want to come back to OB, many on this site are not posting b/c of this nonsense.  It must be stopped.  It is not Biblical.  I was contacted by a young man, on Facebook, who goes to a non-denominational church. He is hungry for the word of God.  I was thinking about recommending this site to him, but thought again.  I certainly would not want him to pick up any false doctrine on this site.  The dogma that is spewed all the time by the Calvinists should be taken to CARM, where they would be welcomed with open arms.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

How can there be seven trumpts sounding during the tribulation AFTER the LAST trump is sounded when the rapture takes place at the beginning of the tribulation?  How many "Last" trumpets can there be?

The last "trump" is the SOUND a trumpet makes. It does not mean "the last of seven trumpets".

 

Therefore, the rapture will take place after the last "trump" of a trumpet while the Second Coming will follow the last or seventh trumpet.

 

Notice in I. Thess. 4:6 where it is compared with the "voice of the archangel".

 

Also, in Revelation 4:1 where God's voice sounded like a trumpet and then John was told to "come up hither". 

 

This is a trumpet that "trumps" before the tribulation. It has nothing to do with the seven trumpets at the end of the tribulation.

 

trump2   [truhmp]  Show IPA Literary.
noun
1.
a trumpet.
2.
its sound.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Mat 24:31
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

1Co 15:52
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump:for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

1Th 4:16-17
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God:and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air:and so shall we ever be with the Lord.



Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

The last "trump" is the SOUND a trumpet makes. It does not mean "the last of seven trumpets".

 

Therefore, the rapture will take place after the last "trump" of a trumpet while the Second Coming will follow the last or seventh trumpet.

 

Notice in I. Thess. 4:6 where it is compared with the "voice of the archangel".

 

Also, in Revelation 4:1 where God's voice sounded like a trumpet and then John was told to "come up hither". 

 

This is a trumpet that "trumps" before the tribulation. It has nothing to do with the seven trumpets at the end of the tribulation.

 

trump2   [truhmp]  Show IPA Literary.
noun
1.
a trumpet.
2.
its sound.

 

So what will the other trumpets do, quack? I suspect the seven trumpets of revelation will "trump" as well. So that means a trump before them can't be 'the' last trump. 

 

So again I ask, how many LAST trumps can there be? I suspect, having some small understanding the word 'last', that, like Highlander, there can be only one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

So what will the other trumpets do, quack? I suspect the seven trumpets of revelation will "trump" as well. So that means a trump before them can't be 'the' last trump.

So again I ask, how many LAST trumps can there be? I suspect, having some small understanding the word 'last', that, like Highlander, there can be only one.


Mike, that is a very narrow view of the word.
In a motor race for instance, is the guy who was last in the last race the last guy ever to come last? Or will there be another race next week in which someone will come last?

Last does not always mean last ever - it could be last of a particular set.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Forums are places of discussion. And a variety of views will be presented because there are a variety of people on them. Who look at scripture in a variety of ways. There have been IFB for years who have believed in mid-trib and post-trib raptures, as well as pre-trib (the predominant view) and double raptures (pre- and mid-). I'm not really surprised by much that people believe - especially IFB.

In one of my college classes, we were discussing prophecy. The president of this college was a good friend of Ian Paisley's, but did not agree with him on prophecy and infant baptism. Paisley is a mid-tribber. Anyway, the teacher in that class was showing us why Paisley was wrong in his trib beliefs - using the verses IP uses. As we walked out of that class, I told another student that if I weren't convinced in my own mind in a pre-trib rapture, it would have been easy to sway me to believe in a mid-trib rapture. That was absolutely not the effect the teacher was going for, but it was a result of looking at scripture the way a mid-tribber does.

That said: we all need to be convinced in our minds and hearts of what we believe, and it has to be grounded totally in scripture - rightly divided. If we are not, a forum can simply mess us up. And, while we are convinced in our own minds, if we are to be biblical, we must refrain from the type of confrontation that is conflict for the purpose of conflict (which many often use and claim it to be a defense of the "faith").

Verses can be applied in a variety of ways, prompting a variety of beliefs around that same topic. Is it heresy? Well, we need to be careful of flinging that word around. It's been applied on the forum lately like a battering ram. Folks who don't agree with other folks on one little thing claim the others are heretics. And vice versa. Yes, there is real heresy presented at times. But often the label is given because the labeler can't think of any other way to erm, uh - undermine the other person's point of view. We all want to be right (and I always am... :nuts::nuts: NOT!). But that doesn't make anyone who disagrees with us heretics.


And before I'm accused of moral relativism, just stop and think about what I've said, folks. Jesus tells us "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." Yes, I know. Some folks think that blasting at others to browbeat or sarcasm them into agreement is defense of the faith and thereby love. But it isn't. We can be firm without being OBnoxious...

Look at some of the things that have been thrown around the forum lately. Some of the wording, attitude, etc. Some adults on here sound like children. And I guarantee that you wouldn't allow your children to speak to each other in that manner. Well, not if you're a good parent, anyway. But it's justified on here in the name of defending the faith... Look at that verse again. "Love one to another."

Not for another. TO. We can have love for someone and treat them awful. As has been done multiple times on this forum of late. OR we can be active and proactive and OBey scripture. TO is an active preposition, for is not.

Let's show love to one another. Yes, be firm in your stance. Support your position with scripture. But do it scripturally and not like a recalcitrant child would do.

It's not my intention to ruffle feathers, but if I have, so be it.

The only issue I have with this is the inconsistency.
(And I know it is hard).
This most recent SDA guy was not mean nor abusive in any way - yet was banned simply because he was defending his position.

Yet there are some here who have been contentious, mean, attacking, and bullying, and at most they are told to settle down, and often allowed to simply roam unhindered, apparently because they call themselves baptists.

There are threads I won't post in now because I can't be bothered fielding the flack these people will give me.
They win. There is no opposition to their lies not because they are right but because they get away with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Off topic...

 

DaveW...that SDA guy was banned from this forum twice...once as AWHN and then as banner over me was love.  It is OBvious he was spamming his false SDA doctrine and came back on here under false pretenses.  He wasn't just "defending his position".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Off topic...

DaveW...that SDA guy was banned from this forum twice...once as AWHN and then as banner over me was love. It is OBvious he was spamming his false SDA doctrine and came back on here under false pretenses. He wasn't just "defending his position".


I know who and what he is, but the fact remains that he was this time participating in a civil and reasoned discussion. It most certainly was going to go the way of the previous - there is no doubt of that - but at the time he was banned the discussion was civil.
Contrast that with the actions of some on here and the bullying that has gone on and still does.

Inconsistency is what it is.
There are some here who promote false doctrines just like that guy, but they do it with spite and false accusations and misrepresentations and LIES, but because they CLAIM to be IFB - or not in some cases - they are allowed to continue along their merry, bullying ways.......

The mods have a really difficult jOB, but right now I think it is overwhelming them to some extent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Mike, that is a very narrow view of the word.
In a motor race for instance, is the guy who was last in the last race the last guy ever to come last? Or will there be another race next week in which someone will come last?

Last does not always mean last ever - it could be last of a particular set.

Well, we ARE talking, generally, on the subject of "The Bible Only", right? The Bible says, its the last trump. It doesn't qualify that with any other description, as in, the last of the feast of trumpets in 2020, or the last trump of the seven or the last trumpet trump made by Sachmo-it just says, "the last trump." As such, to assume anything else, ESPECIALLY when a major set of events in the last days is seven major heavenly events which are associated with trumpets (trumping, I assume), there is every reason why it would be most natural to associate the last trump with the last trumpet sound mentioned in the Bible as part of the end of the world as we know it.. Anything other than this is mere conjecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

You've got to be kidding me, Invicta.  Covenanter doesn't believe in the rapture of the saints.  He referred to it as the "fake rapture" in many posts.

I would like to see where Covenanter said that..He may have said that the pre trib rapture theory was fake, but he has said that he does believe we will be caught up to meet the Lord in the Air.  How could he believe any differently when that is what the bible says?  However whjat the scripture does not say is that we will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air before the tribulation.  

Besides, Calvinists aren't "rightly dividing the word of truth."  When are Calvinists going to see that preterism is not a Biblical doctrine?  

 

I don't know any preterists apart from Covenanter.  Darby the inventor of dispensationalism was a Calvinist and was a futurist, so I can't see you point here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

HC, so you don't believe that "Replacement Theology" is heresy?  I have said this before, but I feel like I am back in the RCC with the Calvinists on this site.  And, they DO NOT know how to "rightly divide the word of truth."  They should be labeled as heretics, b/c they are spewing false doctrine, from the depths of hell.  Yet, they continue to get away with this garbage on an IFB site and the rest of us are told that we are being contentious?  There is something seriously wrong with that.  Not only do former IFB's on Facebook not want to come back to OB, many on this site are not posting b/c of this nonsense.  It must be stopped.  It is not Biblical.  I was contacted by a young man, on Facebook, who goes to a non-denominational church. He is hungry for the word of God.  I was thinking about recommending this site to him, but thought again.  I certainly would not want him to pick up any false doctrine on this site.  The dogma that is spewed all the time by the Calvinists should be taken to CARM, where they would be welcomed with open arms.   

 

That is a somewhat abusive post,

 

I know of only one preterist who is a 'Calvinist' so I do not know why you connect them together.

 

I have a friend who is a charismatic, and he is also a dispensationalist.  So should I say that all sispies are charismatics?  I don't think so.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

That is a somewhat abusive post,

I know of only one preterist who is a 'Calvinist' so I do not know why you connect them together.

I have a friend who is a charismatic, and he is also a dispensationalist. So should I say that all sispies are charismatics? I don't think so.

I would say that all dispys are choking on a charismatic gnat.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

That is a somewhat abusive post,

 

I know of only one preterist who is a 'Calvinist' so I do not know why you connect them together.

 

I have a friend who is a charismatic, and he is also a dispensationalist.  So should I say that all sispies are charismatics?  I don't think so.  

 

By Covenanter's own testimony he admits it, Invicta.

This is from Ukelelemike's thread, that he opened up for discussion, on why he does not believe in a pre-trib "catching away."


 

"Without hijacking the thread, it may be helpful to explain my position & why I am here.
 
I was brought up in the church of England, where my understanding of eschatology was limited to the Apostles' Creed:
... he ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead ....... The resurrection of the body ....
I was converted at 18 (1957), I read through the Bible & was introduced to an Independent Evangelical church a few days before I went to university.
I joined the Christian Union, attended their meetings, including prayer, & was baptised at the local Evangelical church in in the university town in December 57. The CU was present there, & that was when my wife first noticed me.
 
I did not know that the subject of eschatology was controversial, until students with their Scofield Bibles talked about the  millennium. I asked my home Pastor, & he gave me "More than Conquerers" by Hendriksen, which dismisses the Preterist position, states the historical amil position - that NT Bible prophecy, particularly Revelation runs from Pentecost to the second coming. The book includes a Biblical critique of Scofield teaching. I accepted & agreed with what I read. My Pastor explained that the founder of the FIEC (churches & fellowships that had left their denomination to uphold the inspiration & authority of the Bible) was strongly premil, but on consultation the statement on the second coming was deliberately ambiguous.
The Lord Jesus Christ will return in glory. He will raise the dead and judge the world in righteousness. The wicked will be sent to eternal punishment and the righteous will be welcomed into a life of eternal joy in fellowship with God. God will make all things new and will be glorified forever.
 
After graduation & marriage, we moved to Southall & joined the local Evangelical church. After a time the teaching became strongly dispensational, influenced by a group who had joined just before we did, when their previous church joined the World Council of Churches. We left, & only rejoined when the church called an amil Pastor. For the next 20 years or so, my views were not challenged. In the 90s, I preached through Revelation from the amil historical viewpoint, using Hendriksen as my guide. The churches I attend hold to the amil position, not Preterist.
 
With the heightened interest in the last days - the popularity of "Left Behind" & such, I did take an interest in the detailed interpretation of eschatology, aided by my wife (of nearly 52 years), who took her degree in History & Theology. [My degree is in Chemistry.] I was also discussing these things on an Internet forum "Reachout Trust" which is concerned with heretical sects & questionable teaching - I met Invicta there. The late founder of the RT was strongly disp. That gave me what I believe to be a good understanding of all sides of the discusion, & led me into a "partial Preterist" position, whereby I believe OT prophecy is fulfilled in Christ & his redeeming work, that NT prophecy (Olivet, Thessalonians & Revelation) is largely fulfilled by the AD 70 destruction, & that in Christ the promises to Abraham are fulfilled - including Gen. 12:
2 and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
I further believe that the OT promises to Israel, national & land, include believing Jews & Gentiles as one redeemed people of God, who are called by the present Gospel, & will be perfectly fulfilled in the NH&NE when Jesus returns for resurrection & judgment.
 
Please don't allow the thread to be hijacked by replying to this post. I am simply telling you how I understand what I believe & teach."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 

 

 

By Covenanter's own testimony he admits it, Invicta.

This is from Ukelelemike's thread, that he opened up for discussion, on why he does not believe in a pre-trib "catching away."


 

Exactly.  He doesn't believe in the pre trib "catching away", but then the church never did before 1800. He does believe that we will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air, which is what the scriptures actually say.  

 

The pre trib view is false, and as one former dispensationalist wrote.

 

..........,we have here to do with a system of teaching which, whether true or false, is of the most radical sort.  Hence if true, it is most astonishing that not one of the godly and spiritual teachers of all the Christian centuries had so much as a glimpse of it; and if false, it is high time its character were exposed and the whole system dealt with accordingly.  And inasmuch as it contradicts what every Christian teacher, without a known exception, has held to be the indisputable truth of scripture concerning the gospel of God and the kingdom of God, it clearly belongs in the category of those "divers and strange doctrines," against which we are specially warned (# Heb 13:9).  For it is undeniably "diverse" from all that has been hitherto taught the people of God, and it is altogether "strange" to their ears.  This I deem worthy of specific emphasis, and hence would ask the reader to keep constantly in mind the fact of the absolute novelty of dispensationalism.  For here is modernism in the strictest sense; and it is all the more to be feared and shunned because it comes to us in the guise and garb of strict orthodoxy. 
 

 

 

The above writer also said in 1923, that the doctrine was brought to New York in about 1900, 

 

   
 
  From what I have been able to gather by inquiry of others (who were "in Christ before me") the new system of doctrine we are now discussing was first brought to the vicinity of New York by a very gifted and godly man, Mr. Malachi Taylor, (one of the "Brethren") who taught it with much earnestness and plausibility.  That was near the beginning of the present century, either a little before of a little after. 
 
 
And among those who heard and were captivated by it (for truly there is some strange fascination inherent in it) was the late Dr. C. I. Scofield, who was so infatuated with it that he proceeded forthwith to bring out the new edition of the entire Bible, having for its distinctive feature that the peculiar doctrines of this new dispensationalism are woven into the very warp and woof thereof, in the form of notes, headings, subheadings and summaries.  There is no doubt whatever that it is mainly to this cleverly executed work that dispensationalism owes its present vogue.  For without that aid it doubtless would be clearly seen by all who give close attention to the doctrine, that it is a humanly contrived system that has been imposed upon the Bible, not a scheme of doctrine derived from it. 
 

 

 

Before 1800, almost all Baptists believed that the Pope is the antichrist, but after, the new teaching and Scofield changed all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Spurgeon wrote some things worthy of reading on the matter of the "new teaching (as Spurgeon called it) of dispensationalism which he said Darby introduced. According to Spurgeon, if Darby hadn't been such a gifted orator few would have given this new teaching an ear. As it was, some people took to the new teaching almost entirely due to Darby's oratory skills.

 

In any event, it's interesting to read what a contemporary of Darby thought of the matter as it was occurring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

A slightly different aspect which has spoken around but not directly addressed.

There are those here who seem to be bold in proclaiming that they ONLY use the Bible to study.

That is fine, and it should be our primary source.
And any other material used should be carefully considered in many aspects, of course.

But if you reject all other material, then you are losing out on understanding and depth from the Scriptures that is not available without certain outside information.

IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE BIBLE IN ANY WAY, but can bring a depth and richness to understanding what the Scriptures say.

 

Interestin' question!

 

I read and study the Geneva Bible, (1560 edition only). It clarifies everything Baptists that I know preach and teach. In my opinion it is so much more clear than studying commentaries that are from modern preachers, and the text does not support baptismal regeneration, of which I have had mega discussions with the 'church of christ' cult. It plainly tells that baptism does not save at all.

 

So to say 'bible only'? Yes, mine has a built in commentary, from the one's who translated the text.

 

I know most here will disagree with my stand, but that is MY stand, and I do not expect anyone else to do anything other than stand on their own convictions. I try not to be antagonistic, especially since first coming on here and getting lambasted by 'mean and angry' brothers that showed NO mercy.

 

I regret starting out that way, but that is in the past, and I am trying to listen and learn more, and keep my 'conviction' somewhat silent compared to previously.

 

I have really enjoyed things since. I am learning bunches and hope I do not get banned for being the same type of Christian, but using the Geneva 1560.

 

Have mercy.

 

By the way, I ran out of likes! So many good things in this thread, except the arguing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Exactly.  He doesn't believe in the pre trib "catching away", but then the church never did before 1800. He does believe that we will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air, which is what the scriptures actually say.  

 

The pre trib view is false, and as one former dispensationalist wrote.

 

 

The above writer also said in 1923, that the doctrine was brought to New York in about 1900, 

 

   

 

Before 1800, almost all Baptists believed that the Pope is the antichrist, but after, the new teaching and Scofield changed all that.

 

You ignored the whole point of my post, Invicta.  Coevenanter is a "partial preterist" according to his testimony.  That is not Biblical, nor does it "rightly divide the word of truth."  Please re-read what I wrote.  It is painfully OBvious that is the prOBlem I have with him, not what he believes in eschatology as far as the "rapture" of the saints.   Convenater believes God is done with the Jews.  And, you have taken it upon yourself to speak for him.  "Birds of a feather..."  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is 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...