Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

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

      INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

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

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

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

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

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bible Only?


DaveW

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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

 

Ok, let's cut to the chase here. Yes they, we, us, everyone, reads other books.

That is not why I am saying these statements.

What I am saying, is that we can, have, and maybe should, survive just on God.

Maybe that would cure our society of it's woes upon us, and our children. If we were

so inebriated with the words of God as they are written in the Bible, maybe we would

be stronger, and the world would not be 'so' hopelessly lost.

I have read (yes I said it!) books that mentioned how some men of God centuries ago

would spend hours praying, and hours reading the word of God, and then those books

talk about the great 'revivals' in their regular services that they would have; just because

those men of God immersed themselves in God and his word.

I think it would be worth it to tell our next generation the importance of 'just God' and put

away men's writings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I believe in just sticking to the Bible and not get into men's words whether they be early church men (not father's as Jesus said call no man father) or men of today.

I only used the term Early Church Fathers because that is what the writings are called.  I am not a catholic and call no man father. 

As far as people saying they do not get into men's words and only use the bible, I would suggest reading through the discussions on OB and then tell me that again.

Proverbs 27:17 "Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."

When you give your opinion on bible verses and bible doctrine, why do you think anyone should listen to or read a word you say.  For that matter why do you have a conversation or discussion with anyone if you cannot change your mind on your understanding of a bible doctrine.  If you are immovable why do you think anyone else should be. 

 

Anyone other than God Himself who thinks they have the true knowledge and wisdom of the ages and no other human being does is a fool.  Even Solomon didn't have it all.

 

God bless,

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I put this in the IFB lounge forum and it has not even been looked at let alone commented on so I am putting it here because I think it might be relevent.

 

A question: Did God give Solomon wisdom and understanding through Solomon studying or through miraculous intervention?   To put it another way: Did Solomon study the works of other men to attain his knowledge of trees and other plants, of beasts, fowls, creeping things, and fishes or did he get it all from scripture, or did God just put it all in Solomon's head.

Some scripture (just a small part) dealing with Solomon, knowledge and wisdom:

1 Kings 4:29-34

29 And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore.

30 And Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt.

31 For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all nations round about.

32 And he spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five.

33 And he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes.

34 And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom.

Eccl 1:17-18

17 And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit.

18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Eccl 2:13

13 Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.

Eccl 2:26

26 For God giveth to a man that is good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that he may give to him that is good before God.

Eccl 7:12

12 For wisdom is a defence, and money is a defence: but the excellency of knowledge is, that wisdom giveth life to them that have it.

Eccl 7:19

19 Wisdom strengtheneth the wise more than ten mighty men which are in the city.

Eccl 7:25

25 I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things, and to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness:

Eccl 9:13-18

 This wisdom have I seen also under the sun, and it seemed great unto me:

14 There was a little city, and few men within it; and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it:

15 Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man.

16 Then said I, Wisdom is better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard.

17 The words of wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools.

18 Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good.

Eccl 12:9-14

9 And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs.

10 The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth.

11 The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.

12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

 

God bless,

Larry

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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?

 

I'll have to go back and dig into my stuff a little to recall and give a well-explained answer (it's been a year or two since I encountered his stuff with any depth). One thing I do recall is that he is considered the father of amillennialism, which asserts no earthly reign of Christ, because he saw the one-thousand-year figure as symbolic rather than literal. When I can muster enough time at home I'll be happy to find some more detailed examples for you.

 

 

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

 

 

Irenaeus, an exerpt from Against Heresies - "Those nations, however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons “as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance—in fact, as nothing;” so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.” For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome, they are crowned with incorruption [emphasis added].

 

There aren't enough writings of Polycarp to discern his stance on the millennium or rapture. The only statements he makes are to affirm the resurrection of the saints and the reality of hell. I included him in the above explanation to show the close and short line of teaching between John and Irenaeus.

 

I've never been a fan of Tertullian. He was a Montanist, which were ardent legalists that strangely also had a lot of practices similar to Pentecostals today. Generally speaking, not someone I want to take theological input from, though some of his early apologetic writings were good.

 

Edit:

After reading your description of what you gleaned from Tertullian, I don't see how it precludes a pre-trib position. In my understanding, there appears to simply be a misapplication (i.e. bad guess) on who the eschatological prophecies referred to. Since they expected Jesus Christ to be coming again soon, they would naturally have considered Rome and the Emporer as major players in the end-times narrative. It is the same thing people do now in trying to guess who the Antichrist is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I only used the term Early Church Fathers because that is what the writings are called. I am not a catholic and call no man father.
As far as people saying they do not get into men's words and only use the bible, I would suggest reading through the discussions on OB and then tell me that again.
Proverbs 27:17 "Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."
When you give your opinion on bible verses and bible doctrine, why do you think anyone should listen to or read a word you say. For that matter why do you have a conversation or discussion with anyone if you cannot change your mind on your understanding of a bible doctrine. If you are immovable why do you think anyone else should be.

Anyone other than God Himself who thinks they have the true knowledge and wisdom of the ages and no other human being does is a fool. Even Solomon didn't have it all.

God bless,
Larry

Having a discussion, between two people that have the indwelling Spirit of God, is potentially profitable.

Reading someone's thoughts, is not the same.
There is no interaction.
There is no resistance.
Iron sharpens through resistance.

2Ti 4:3
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

These days of reading every man's teachings ( not interaction) were prophesied of a long time ago.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I put this in the IFB lounge forum and it has not even been looked at let alone commented on so I am putting it here because I think it might be relevent.

 

A question: Did God give Solomon wisdom and understanding through Solomon studying or through miraculous intervention?   To put it another way: Did Solomon study the works of other men to attain his knowledge of trees and other plants, of beasts, fowls, creeping things, and fishes or did he get it all from scripture, or did God just put it all in Solomon's head.

Some scripture (just a small part) dealing with Solomon, knowledge and wisdom:

I believe that God gave him the heart of search things out but not by the works of other men. 

 

Because his wisdom exceeded the wisdom of the men of the east does not mean Solomon himself studied their works.  More than likely it was people that knew the writings of the men of the  east that informed him that his wisdom exceeded it and so it was inspired by God to record that but God already knew his wisdom would be above the rest because Solomon trusted God above men to reveal to him wisdom because he asked for wisdom.  He studied and possessed the knowledge of husbandry, horticulture, mathematics, Weather dynamics, and biological and astronomical sciences.  You can find references to these in his Biblical writings.

 

 Eccl 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books [there is] no end; and much study [is] a weariness of the flesh.

It was Solomon who studied hard and was the one to write many books and these books were carried into all the lands.  Later from these lands you can find Solomons writing were some what plagiarized.  Just like the stories of Hercules were plagiarized from the Bible stories of Samson that were recorded many many years before the Greeks wrote of Hercules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Ok, let's cut to the chase here. Yes they, we, us, everyone, reads other books.

That is not why I am saying these statements.

What I am saying, is that we can, have, and maybe should, survive just on God.

Maybe that would cure our society of it's woes upon us, and our children. If we were

so inebriated with the words of God as they are written in the Bible, maybe we would

be stronger, and the world would not be 'so' hopelessly lost.

I have read (yes I said it!) books that mentioned how some men of God centuries ago

would spend hours praying, and hours reading the word of God, and then those books

talk about the great 'revivals' in their regular services that they would have; just because

those men of God immersed themselves in God and his word.

I think it would be worth it to tell our next generation the importance of 'just God' and put

away men's writings.

Do I read other Christian men's Books sure I do.

 

One of the men I like to read is Oliver B Green.  I read other too but more time than not I find they are at time correcting the English with the Greek and that bugs me.  the AV/KJV is clear if one studies out the English word you can learn far more than going to the Greek.

 

For example:  2Ti 2:3 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.  Every man I hear preach this is either following another or go to the Greek to change it to Hardship.  But the word hardness is very interesting it is used in all its uses out side of this one in referring to a condition of the heart.  Anyone in military or police work know there is one thing you must do when doing your duty is you cannot let your heart get in the way or you lose.  Also if you are the law enforcement whether soldier of police the people who come up against you are hard to your message of the law and your purpose of upholding it.

 

We must endure that hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.  some people are hard to the message of the gospel and we endure that sometimes we must keep our heart in check and not become hard to those who don't accept the message of the cross.  We must endure hardness of different kinds just like a soldier or police officer would.

 

Now it may be a hardship to endure but why limit the word to hardship when it has much more for us than that?

 

Can you see what I am saying.  better to stick to the word of God than those of even some well meaning men of God who could be in error or limiting the meaning of God's word.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Do I read other Christian men's Books sure I do.

 

One of the men I like to read is Oliver B Green.  I read other too but more time than not I find they are at time correcting the English with the Greek and that bugs me.  the AV/KJV is clear if one studies out the English word you can learn far more than going to the Greek.

 

For example:  2Ti 2:3 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.  Every man I hear preach this is either following another or go to the Greek to change it to Hardship.  But the word hardness is very interesting it is used in all its uses out side of this one in referring to a condition of the heart.  Anyone in military or police work know there is one thing you must do when doing your duty is you cannot let your heart get in the way or you lose.  Also if you are the law enforcement whether soldier of police the people who come up against you are hard to your message of the law and your purpose of upholding it.

 

We must endure that hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.  some people are hard to the message of the gospel and we endure that sometimes we must keep our heart in check and not become hard to those who don't accept the message of the cross.  We must endure hardness of different kinds just like a soldier or police officer would.

 

Now it may be a hardship to endure but why limit the word to hardship when it has much more for us than that?

 

Can you see what I am saying.  better to stick to the word of God than those of even some well meaning men of God who could be in error or limiting the meaning of God's word.
 

 

Exactly, there AVBB! Finally a positive response that makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I'll have to go back and dig into my stuff a little to recall and give a well-explained answer (it's been a year or two since I encountered his stuff with any depth). One thing I do recall is that he is considered the father of amillennialism, which asserts no earthly reign of Christ, because he saw the one-thousand-year figure as symbolic rather than literal. When I can muster enough time at home I'll be happy to find some more detailed examples for you.

 

 

Thanks for taking time to reply.  I do appreciate that.

 

Most people from before and immediately after the reformation seemed to belive in a literal 1000 years. But not a future 1000 years, but either 1000 years from the birth of Christ as the bishops and monks, taught.  When as the year 1000 began, many handed all their property over to the church or the monastaries, as they thought the world would end that year.  When nothing happened the clamoured for their belongings back, but the bishops and monks or prOBably just the monks as bishops were often illiterate, had tied it all up legal like and there was no way they could get their goods back. Others taught that the 1000 years went from pentecost, and others from thought from about AD96 when the Revelation was written, till the coming of the Turks just before 1100.  Luther believed that for a while, but may have changed his beliefs later as many others did as they read the scriptures.  Remember scripture stud was a lost art at the reformation.

 

I have never been a fan of Tertullian. He was a Montanist, which were ardent legalists that strangely also had a lot of practices similar to Pentecostals today. Generally speaking, not someone I want to take theological input from, though some of his early apologetic writings were good.

 

Tertullian was a Montanist, agreed, but I believe that was in his later life, his apology was a great writing.  Strangely, Caroll in The Trail of Blood, considers the montanists in the line of Baptists.  .

 

I don't refer to them as Church Fathers, but as Early Christian writers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't refer to them as Church Fathers, but as Early Christian writers.

 

I agree with much of what you have to say, particularly regarding Tertullian. I know a lot of people like Caroll's The Trail of Blood, but I really think a lot of it is a stretch as well. One thing I would add to your millennial discussion is that the shift in thought from a soon-coming of Christ in terms of premillennialism appears to have held strong through the first 3-4 centuries. After that (around the time of Augustine), there was a definite shift to what you described because people grappled for a way to fit their current understanding into the concept of the millennium when they hadn't yet seen the Second Coming. What I see from my study of the issue (which I would like to study more to be honest) is that the shift to premillennialism (and associated views of the rapture) are a return to that ideology rather than a new concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Now it may be a hardship to endure but why limit the word to hardship when it has much more for us than that?

 

Can you see what I am saying.  better to stick to the word of God than those of even some well meaning men of God who could be in error or limiting the meaning of God's word.
 

 

Because I believe God, and His Word by extension, don't change (Heb 13:8; Mal 3:6) and His truth remains the same regardless of how a language developes/changes over time and so we are not free to choose any definition we want because that leads to various strange doctrines (Heb 13:9) like Pentecostals babbling unintelligably, Lutherans pouring water all over babies' heads, Calvinists teaching double-predestination, or Catholics claiming the Pope is Peter's successor and has the authority of Christ. I believe originally intended meaning matters and we're to make valid applications from it.

 

I see what you're saying, I just disagree with it because I think it plays a little too fast and loose with the Word of God and leaves biblical truths at the whims of ever-changing human communication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Brother, you might as well toss out the KJV and read your originals.

 

Why? You don't think the original meaning is discernable in English? I thought you had faith in the KJV....Or is it that you don't care what the original meaning was and prefer whatever meaning you can muster from a wide range of disparate definitions? Either way, I don't really care anymore. I'm all done dealing with you. Adding "Brother" to a snarky comment doesn't make it kind or respectful. It makes it sarcastic and hypocritical.

 

ἡ χάρις του Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χρίστου μετά σού.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Why? You don't think the original meaning is discernable in English? I thought you had faith in the KJV....Or is it that you don't care what the original meaning was and prefer whatever meaning you can muster from a wide range of disparate definitions? Either way, I don't really care anymore. I'm all done dealing with you. Adding "Brother" to a snarky comment doesn't make it kind or respectful. It makes it sarcastic and hypocritical.

 

ἡ χάρις του Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χρίστου μετά σού.

Adding a little Greek at the end of your comment smacks of elitism.

 

The prOBlem with you is the KJV is not good enough. So why beat around the bush and waste your time with it? Just go with the originals full steam ahead because that's where you are heading anyways.

 

Oh, by the way, most heresies and "strange doctrines" don't not come from the meaning of English words but rather from people messing around with the "original languages". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Adding a little Greek at the end of your comment smacks of elitism.

 

Hello Pot. My name is Kettle, and I think you got your black all over me because yeah...I did stoop to your level a little bit with that. Allow me to translate that usual ending of a Pauline epistle for you: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you."

 

 

The prOBlem with you is the KJV is not good enough. So why beat around the bush and waste your time with it? Just go with the originals full steam ahead because that's where you are heading anyways.

 

Oh, by the way, most heresies and "strange doctrines" don't not come from the meaning of English words but rather from people messing around with the "original languages". 

 

Prove that...any of it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Hello Pot. My name is Kettle, and I think you got your black all over me because yeah...I did stoop to your level a little bit with that. Allow me to translate that usual ending of a Pauline epistle for you: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you."

 

 

 

Prove that...any of it...

I am in awe of your knowledge of the originals. 

 

The fact that there are 250 English versions of the bible since 1900 and the unlimited heresies that have sprung up since that time (the modern day Charismatic movement itself began a year after the ASV came to America) should be enough to tell you about your lovely original languages and the mess they have caused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Because I believe God, and His Word by extension, don't change (Heb 13:8; Mal 3:6) and His truth remains the same regardless of how a language developes/changes over time and so we are not free to choose any definition we want because that leads to various strange doctrines (Heb 13:9) like Pentecostals babbling unintelligably, Lutherans pouring water all over babies' heads, Calvinists teaching double-predestination, or Catholics claiming the Pope is Peter's successor and has the authority of Christ. I believe originally intended meaning matters and we're to make valid applications from it.

 

I see what you're saying, I just disagree with it because I think it plays a little too fast and loose with the Word of God and leaves biblical truths at the whims of ever-changing human communication.

I used only my English AV/KJV Bible to learn the definition of hardness.  You nor anyone else, could ever, by using the English AV/KJV Bible to define the word hardness, come to the conclusion that the English word Hardness means hardship by the simple English AV/KJV definition.

 

The Meaning of the English word as found in the AV/KJV never changed over time it is still the same as it was 400 plus years ago.  Try using the English AV/KJV Bible to define the English words found in it without any outside source and you might just be surprised at what you learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...