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

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.


And that is simply not true.

You understand God's Word in the light of outside information and influence EVERY TIME YOU READ IT.

And that is my point, which is plainly clear.

Show me a definition of snow for instance. You understand what the Bible means by "White as snow" not because the Bible itself explains it, but because the Bible assumes you know what snow looks like. How? From other sources.

Now if you want to continue to misrepresent what I say, then go right ahead, but if you do you will be a liar.


"Material" is now to be considered synonymous with 'OBserving nature'?

" 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."

You wanna try again?

Your OP was about Commentaries, and such like, and we all know it.
Why lie?
Why not own up to the fact that Scripture really is all we need, that it has a built in teacher to God's children?

I see no need in pretending, mid-stream, that you were referring to OBservations of nature, rather than the words and teachings of other men, and specifically, their exposition of Scripture.

Care to back track, or will you carry on the charade?

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

My op was precisely NOT about commentaries - but you go ahead and continue to misrepresent and lie.

It was about material - both written and OBserved - ASIDE from commentaries.

I have no prOBlem at all with you continuing to lie and misrepresent me.

You are not the first and won't be the last, and it is not the first time you have done so.

Enjoy your continued deceit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
My op was precisely NOT about commentaries - but you go ahead and continue to misrepresent and lie. It was about material - both written and OBserved - ASIDE from commentaries. I have no prOBlem at all with you continuing to lie and misrepresent me. You are not the first and won't be the last, and it is not the first time you have done so. Enjoy your continued deceit.
If you are now saying, that by "material", you meant exactly "not written study guides such as commentaries, lexicons, Bible Dictionaries, et al", but rather "the sum of one's personal OBservations", then the post I made wouldn't apply to you, and should not upset you. I don't mind if you don't fit this description, we have all met people who do, and the principle is the point. I'm glad that you don't count yourself in the number of people who have to hang whatever they believe on another man's interpretation of it. Anishinaabe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

This argument is getting nowhere - we all had to learn to read and talk and so learn the meaning of words. We have listened to sermons, sung hymns, etc. Our understanding is a matter of our educational history.

 

While our ability to READ is common ground, our UNDERSTANDING of what we read is not. Even when we read related Scripture to use the Bible as its own commentary, our religious education and beliefs will affect what we understand by the same readings. Why else should we have these discussions?

 

I have been taught amil covenant theology, and many years of reading has developed and modified my understanding. Years of Internet discussions have given me an understanding of dispensational theology, but I am not convinced. Such discussions did move me to a partial preterist position. [i've had to add "preterist" to the dictionary.]

 

That does not mean I reject dispensational theology because of what I have been taught. I believe what I do because of my reading of Scripture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

Have you actually read what I have written, particularly what you have quoted?

 

Your repeated attacks on me are based on your own prejdices, NOT on what I write. You rarely quote relevant Scripture in your attacks, but accuse me of RCC teaching. Do YOU believe RCC teaching, such as the "Apostles' Creed" ? Not that the "AC" originated with Rome, any more than "partial preterism." Both originated with Scripture.

 

Ian, I will reply to you privately.  I think that is the best way to handle it.

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.  

 

I know this was a couple days and a couple pages ago, but it is factually incorrect so I feel I must point it out. A study of church history and writers from the post-Apostolic era of the church reveals a premillennial, and normally pre-tribulational, interpretation was the dominant view until about the 4th-5th century when Augustine's allegorical approach to Scripture began to take over. The clearest examples can be found in the writings of Irenaeus and his mentor Polycarp (a disciple of John who penned Revelation). When people began to fret over the fact that Jesus had not returned as soon as they expected, they began to find ways to re-explain eschatological issues such as the rapture, tribulation, and second coming of Christ.

 

As it relates to the OP, study of such material should help one see why divergent views arose as well as the beliefs commonly held shortly after Biblical writings ended. This should also help avoid making the same interpretive mistakes as those who have gone before us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I know this was a couple days and a couple pages ago, but it is factually incorrect so I feel I must point it out. A study of church history and writers from the post-Apostolic era of the church reveals a premillennial, and normally pre-tribulational, interpretation was the dominant view until about the 4th-5th century when Augustine's allegorical approach to Scripture began to take over. The clearest examples can be found in the writings of Irenaeus and his mentor Polycarp (a disciple of John who penned Revelation). When people began to fret over the fact that Jesus had not returned as soon as they expected, they began to find ways to re-explain eschatological issues such as the rapture, tribulation, and second coming of Christ.

As it relates to the OP, study of such material should help one see why divergent views arose as well as the beliefs commonly held shortly after Biblical writings ended. This should also help avoid making the same interpretive mistakes as those who have gone before us.

You mean this crowd:

2Pe 3:3-4
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

?

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You mean this crowd:

2Pe 3:3-4
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

?

Anishinaabe

 

Not sure what you're getting at, but Pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

My op was precisely NOT about commentaries - but you go ahead and continue to misrepresent and lie.

It was about material - both written and OBserved - ASIDE from commentaries.

I have no prOBlem at all with you continuing to lie and misrepresent me.

You are not the first and won't be the last, and it is not the first time you have done so.

Enjoy your continued deceit.

 

Recognize this? -   "The scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect, how can we excuse

                              ourselves of negligence, if we do not study them, of curiosity if we be not content with them?

                              ... Well, that which they falsely or vainly attributed to these things for bodily good, we may justly

                              and with full measure ascribe unto the scripture for spiritual. It is not only an armor, but also a

                              whole armory of weapons, both offensive and defensive; whereby we may save ourselves and

                              put the enemy to flight. It is not an herb, but a tree, or rather a whole paradise of trees of life, which

                              bring forth fruit every month, and the fruit thereof is for meat, and the leaves for medicine.

                                It is not a pot of Manna, or a cruse of oil which were for memory only, or for a meals meat or two, but

                              as it were a shower of heavenly bread sufficient for a whole host, be it never so great; and as it were

                              a whole cellar full of oil vessels; whereby all our necessities may be provided for, and our debts

                              discharged. 

                                 In a word, it is a Panary of wholesome food, against fenowed traditions; a Physicians-shop of 

                              preservatives against poisoned heresies; a Pandect of profitable laws, against rebellious spirits; a

                              treasury of most costly jewels, against beggarly rudiments; Finally a fountain of most pure water

                              springing up unto everlasting life.

                                 And what marvel? The original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God,

                              not man; the enditer, the holy spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the pen - men such as were

                              sanctified from the womb, and endowed with a principal portion of God's spirit; the matter, verity, piety,

                              purity, uprightness; the form, God's word, God's testimony, God's oracles, the word of truth, the word of

                              salvation, etc., the effects, light of understanding stableness of persuasion, repentance from dead works,

                              newness of life, holiness, peace, joy in the holy ghost; lastly, the end and reward of the study thereof,

                              fellowship with the saints, participation of the heavenly nature, fruition of an inheritance immortal, undefiled,

                              and that shall never fade away: Happy is the man that delighteth in the scripture, and thrice happy that 

                              meditateth in it day and night." 

 

Pretty clear that the word of God alone is enough to the writer of this quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Recognize this? -   "The scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect, how can we excuse

                              ourselves of negligence, if we do not study them, of curiosity if we be not content with them?

                              ... Well, that which they falsely or vainly attributed to these things for bodily good, we may justly

                              and with full measure ascribe unto the scripture for spiritual. It is not only an armor, but also a

                              whole armory of weapons, both offensive and defensive; whereby we may save ourselves and

                              put the enemy to flight. It is not an herb, but a tree, or rather a whole paradise of trees of life, which

                              bring forth fruit every month, and the fruit thereof is for meat, and the leaves for medicine.

                                It is not a pot of Manna, or a cruse of oil which were for memory only, or for a meals meat or two, but

                              as it were a shower of heavenly bread sufficient for a whole host, be it never so great; and as it were

                              a whole cellar full of oil vessels; whereby all our necessities may be provided for, and our debts

                              discharged. 

                                 In a word, it is a Panary of wholesome food, against fenowed traditions; a Physicians-shop of 

                              preservatives against poisoned heresies; a Pandect of profitable laws, against rebellious spirits; a

                              treasury of most costly jewels, against beggarly rudiments; Finally a fountain of most pure water

                              springing up unto everlasting life.

                                 And what marvel? The original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God,

                              not man; the enditer, the holy spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the pen - men such as were

                              sanctified from the womb, and endowed with a principal portion of God's spirit; the matter, verity, piety,

                              purity, uprightness; the form, God's word, God's testimony, God's oracles, the word of truth, the word of

                              salvation, etc., the effects, light of understanding stableness of persuasion, repentance from dead works,

                              newness of life, holiness, peace, joy in the holy ghost; lastly, the end and reward of the study thereof,

                              fellowship with the saints, participation of the heavenly nature, fruition of an inheritance immortal, undefiled,

                              and that shall never fade away: Happy is the man that delighteth in the scripture, and thrice happy that 

                              meditateth in it day and night." 

 

Pretty clear that the word of God alone is enough to the writer of this quote.

I don't know what this is meant to prove by you.  It says that we should read and study the God's word.  It does not say that we have no need for other books. 

 

God bless,

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Not sure what you're getting at, but Pass.

Those "church fathers" that came up with extra biblical explanations of prophecy, when the end didn't appear to be in a hurry to get there, is what I was getting at.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't know what this is meant to prove by you.  It says that we should read and study the God's word.  It does not say that we have no need for other books. 

 

God bless,

Larry

 

Well, let's see...sounds to me like this guy thought that God's word was invaluable to a child of God,

and, to me, it sounded like he thought it fulfilled all our needs in what we need/want to know about...everything.

 

Read the 1611 original printing of the KJV - The Translators To The Reader - 3rd page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Does Scripture anywhere say that we should not read other books to help us understand the the most important book? Does it say anywhere that we should not learn from people more mature in the faith than we are? Does it say anything about listening to wise counsel and/or teachers? Anything about receiving instruction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Well, let's see...sounds to me like this guy thought that God's word was invaluable to a child of God,

and, to me, it sounded like he thought it fulfilled all our needs in what we need/want to know about...everything.

 

Read the 1611 original printing of the KJV - The Translators To The Reader - 3rd page.

If it fulfilled all their needs why did they study other books?  They were all "educated men", were they not?

 

God bless,

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If Genevan truly believed that one does not need anything but the Scripture, he would not be posting anything but Scripture.

Funny how he makes comments about the Word of God, but is against reading others written commentaries, eh? LOL

 

That is funny. :clapping:

 

Did you know in the 'Translators to the Reader' in the first printing of the KJV, they stated that Origen was

the one who started the New Testament commentaries?

 

You know, the guy who 'originated' the perversion of the scriptures by changing what was said in the text?

 

I just wonder...did his commentaries have anything to do with him deciding to make changes to the text, which produced the ability for later generations to pervert the 'greek' texts and create a basis for 'perverted' English bibles?

 

Here is the quote: "...as it is written of Origen, that he was the first in a manner, that put his hand to write Commentaries upon the Scriptures,..."

(10th page of The Translators To The Reader. 1/2 way down 1st paragraph)

 

I was always taught that Origen was the origin of the 'prOBlem' when it came to the new modern bibles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

That is funny. :clapping:

 

Did you know in the 'Translators to the Reader' in the first printing of the KJV, they stated that Origen was

the one who started the New Testament commentaries?

 

You know, the guy who 'originated' the perversion of the scriptures by changing what was said in the text?

 

I just wonder...did his commentaries have anything to do with him deciding to make changes to the text, which produced the ability for later generations to pervert the 'greek' texts and create a basis for 'perverted' English bibles?

 

Here is the quote: "...as it is written of Origen, that he was the first in a manner, that put his hand to write Commentaries upon the Scriptures,..."

(10th page of The Translators To The Reader. 1/2 way down 1st paragraph)

 

I was always taught that Origen was the origin of the 'prOBlem' when it came to the new modern bibles.

That says to me that the translators read other books.  Maybe some of them might even have been included in the writings of or about the writings of the "Early Church Fathers".  Am I wrong?

 

God bless,

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I know this was a couple days and a couple pages ago, but it is factually incorrect so I feel I must point it out. A study of church history and writers from the post-Apostolic era of the church reveals a premillennial, and normally pre-tribulational, interpretation was the dominant view until about the 4th-5th century when Augustine's allegorical approach to Scripture began to take over. The clearest examples can be found in the writings of Irenaeus and his mentor Polycarp (a disciple of John who penned Revelation). When people began to fret over the fact that Jesus had not returned as soon as they expected, they began to find ways to re-explain eschatological issues such as the rapture, tribulation, and second coming of Christ.

 

As it relates to the OP, study of such material should help one see why divergent views arose as well as the beliefs commonly held shortly after Biblical writings ended. This should also help avoid making the same interpretive mistakes as those who have gone before us.

 

I really have not studied Augustine, so I cannot comment so can you please give an example of his allegory?  I do know that he wrote The City of God, which I assume referered to the church, , but apart from that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This argument is getting nowhere - we all had to learn to read and talk and so learn the meaning of words. We have listened to sermons, sung hymns, etc. Our understanding is a matter of our educational history.

 

While our ability to READ is common ground, our UNDERSTANDING of what we read is not. Even when we read related Scripture to use the Bible as its own commentary, our religious education and beliefs will affect what we understand by the same readings. Why else should we have these discussions?

 

I have been taught amil covenant theology, and many years of reading has developed and modified my understanding. Years of Internet discussions have given me an understanding of dispensational theology, but I am not convinced. Such discussions did move me to a partial preterist position. [i've had to add "preterist" to the dictionary.]

 

That does not mean I reject dispensational theology because of what I have been taught. I believe what I do because of my reading of Scripture. 

Our understanding has a lot to do with our Believing what the word of God say's plain and simple that is for sure.

 

some people don't read so well but God's word says,  Ps 119:130 ¶ The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

But also the simple can be led astray very easily,  Ro 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

 

The best is that a simple man just read and believe the words of God just as the are found in the scriptures.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I know this was a couple days and a couple pages ago, but it is factually incorrect so I feel I must point it out. A study of church history and writers from the post-Apostolic era of the church reveals a premillennial, and normally pre-tribulational, interpretation was the dominant view until about the 4th-5th century when Augustine's allegorical approach to Scripture began to take over. The clearest examples can be found in the writings of Irenaeus and his mentor Polycarp (a disciple of John who penned Revelation). When people began to fret over the fact that Jesus had not returned as soon as they expected, they began to find ways to re-explain eschatological issues such as the rapture, tribulation, and second coming of Christ.

 

As it relates to the OP, study of such material should help one see why divergent views arose as well as the beliefs commonly held shortly after Biblical writings ended. This should also help avoid making the same interpretive mistakes as those who have gone before us.

 

Please don't mention people such as Irenius and Polycoarp without a direct quote as to what they said.   I have read the early church writers and I see nothing about a pre tribulation rapture in their writings, so if you have found some. let me know and I will look it up.  My studies show that they all taught that the let and hinderance in 2 Thess. was the Emperor and the Empire.  Teretullian puts it clearest and mentions it several times.  He said that Rome persecuted Christians,when they actually prayed for Caesar, because they knew of the evils that would come on the earth when the Empire was removed.  The man of sin would come, (Who the mistakenly thought would be an individual), then the end of all things would come. The did not just believe this, as Tertullian wrote, "We Know."    How did they know?  Paul told them.  "2 Thess. 2:5  Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?"

 

They believed that the Emperor had to be removed as there could not be two rulers in Rome at the same time, Emperor and Antichrist.

 
They were not preterists, they held to an historical teaching
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recent Achievements

    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      First Post
    • StandInTheGap earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Mark C went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Collaborator
  • 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...