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.

A New Covenant With The House Of Israel, And With The House Of Judah


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You are speculating.... "why should they...."

I can tell you that Jewish people keep their heritage even if they are a non practising family.

Not speculation - fact.

Many people I have known personally who freely confess to being non-practising Jews still identify as Jewish people.

Speculate away, but it doesn't change the facts.

 

I see more speculating in your post than Ians.

You have facts that people didn't forget their lineage? Sources?

No you don't, so what you seriously 'think' is like an opinion, it matters not.

No proof from a source equals no fact.

 

How about Isaiah 65:11-17 - where the Jews will be known by another name?

Maybe Baruch 2:29-35 - where the Jews would finally 'remember themselves' for who they were?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I see more speculating in your post than Ians.
You have facts that people didn't forget their lineage? Sources?
No you don't, so what you seriously 'think' is like an opinion, it matters not.
No proof from a source equals no fact.

How about Isaiah 65:11-17 - where the Jews will be known by another name?
Maybe Baruch 2:29-35 - where the Jews would finally 'remember themselves' for who they were?


"Many people I have known...."

People I have my, some who I knew or know personally, have worked with, or are long term family friends.
Not opinion at all.
Sammi Nasser, Stanley Scyzeman, Mrs Lindsay, Enoah, along with others I have met in my travels.
My F-i-l used to be heavily involved as a tradesman in the Jewish community, and he was constantly talking about the unity of their community, even among those who were not religious" (his words).

No I don't have a study or statistical figures, but I have personal experience with non-practising Jews, in some cases several generations removed from Judaism, who are still aware of and proud of their Jewish heritage.
In some cases only just removed from Judaism, and in some cases still involved.

I have known some of these people for many years and through several different stages of life.
So I know this to be true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

SInce I believe that God has preserved His words for us the way He wanted to in the ENGLISH KJV, then I must assume that the Lord meant for us to understand some sort of difference between Covenant and Testament, if nothing else in a connotative way.  Maybe they come from the same Greek word, but in my mind this only demonstrates the insufficiency of the Greek here.  The Lord is attempting to differentiate between the OT Covenants, primarily to PHYSICAL Israel, and the New TESTAMENT given to the Church. 

 

It is also noteworthy that the term Covenant appears 14/20 in the NT in the Book of Hebrews, and only 3 times in the Pauline Epistles.  Hebrews is one of the most difficult book in the NT to interpret.  Matthew, Acts, and Hebrews cause more doctrinal stumblingblocks for the New Testament Church Age than any other books in the NT, so I am always suspicious of those who want to START in one of these books to prove their case.  Case in point, the title of this Book of the Bible in question should be a huge "warning bell" to the reader - "HEBREWS."  I am a Gentile through and through, not a Hebrew.  Thus, much of the content of this difficult book is pointed to the HEBREWS, and how Christ has partially fulfilled the requirements of the OT LAW.  However, as the OP notes, not ALL of the OT Law and Covenant has been fulfilled literally.  We do not replace Israel, nor are "included" in the New Covenant with Israel.  The OT promises were very specific regarding the PHYSICAL seed of Abraham, Isaac, and JacOB, and the PHYSICAL Land grants, and the PHYSICAL resurrection of David to rule over PHYSICAL Israel in their promised PHYSICAL land.  There is no getting around this, unless one just blithely dismisses 75% of the Bible.

The Bible Believing Christians throughout this present age have been noted to base their doctrine primarily on Paul, i.e. Romans through Philemon, recognizing that while all of the Bible is written FOR us (Romans 15:4), not all of the Bible is written TO us (i.e. the Church). 

 

In Christ,

 

Hebrews is a Pauline epistle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Hebrews is a Pauline epistle.


Whilst I personally agree, it can not be stated categorically. The Author is not positively identified in Scripture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

SInce I believe that God has preserved His words for us the way He wanted to in the ENGLISH KJV, ... This? -   Hebrews is one of the most difficult book in the NT to interpret.  

 

Can I ask why you have an issue with understanding the book of Hebrews?

You may not have meant it that way, but you make it sound like this book is 'hard to understand' for a child of God.

Is it possible that God would write a book 'not for our good'?

 

Having to look into what is in the Old Testament to see the meaning behind what is easily taught in the book of Hebrews is not a negative thing.

It sounds like you think it would be hard for someone 'new in the faith' to comprehend this book, to the extent that they might need you to 'translate' it for them.

 

What about the Holy Ghost, you know the Comforter? I thought we needed him after the Lord left, to learn his word.

Don't remember Jesus telling anyone that they would need a man to teach them.

 

God's word is understandable by the help of his Holy Spirit, irregardless of some's 'opinions'.

The lost cannot perceive the 'ways' of God's word, but we have the mind of Christ.

 

Just responding for those who are on here daily looking at what we are 'arguing' about, and 'wondering' how in the world they are gonna know truth from fiction.

God will lead, by his Holy Spirit, those who are his, into the perfect knowledge of his word.

Read to know, and one will find the truth of all doctrine.

Opinions don't matter, and neither do friendships.

 

It's all about what is true by God's standards, not ours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Hebrews is a Pauline epistle.

Hebrews is anonomous for a very good reason - it was written by a woman.

Hebrews was written by Priscilla (of Priscilla and Aquila), a Heleinistic Jew 

and not a Palestinian Jew.  Priscilla and Aquila were well educated Jews

and accompanied Paul.  See Acts 18, Romans 16:3 and 1 Cor 16:19.

 

The identification of Paul as author is of 4th Century Catholic origin.

Much of Catholicism is within Protestantism as Replacement Theology

and all its "bedfellows" were retained by the "Reformers" and contaminate

theology.

 

"a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

"Many people I have known...."

People I have my, some who I knew or know personally, have worked with, or are long term family friends.
Not opinion at all.
Sammi Nasser, Stanley Scyzeman, Mrs Lindsay, Enoah, along with others I have met in my travels.
My F-i-l used to be heavily involved as a tradesman in the Jewish community, and he was constantly talking about the unity of their community, even among those who were not religious" (his words).

No I don't have a study or statistical figures, but I have personal experience with non-practising Jews, in some cases several generations removed from Judaism, who are still aware of and proud of their Jewish heritage.
In some cases only just removed from Judaism, and in some cases still involved.

I have known some of these people for many years and through several different stages of life.
So I know this to be true.

 

Yes, and how many centuries does that cover exactly?

My point is you don't know any depth of the history of mankind's past to 'argue' the point. Hundreds of generations have disappeared of mankind without any hint of their past.

What makes you think Jews are any different than that?

They aren't. We are all human, and we forget.

I could use hundreds of 'examples' of humankind that cannot trace, nor remember their lineage, beyond a hundred years.

No matter the records kept, they tend to wear out and be forgotten, for lack of 'need to know'.

Yes, there may be some who do, yet the vast majority of humans just don't worry about it.

They live in the 'now', and since their families before them lived 'hard' lives, it didn't matter to them about their lineage.

I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Hebrews is anonomous for a very good reason - it was written by a woman.

Hebrews was written by Priscilla (of Priscilla and Aquila), a Heleinistic Jew 

and not a Palestinian Jew.  Priscilla and Aquila were well educated Jews

and accompanied Paul.  See Acts 18, Romans 16:3 and 1 Cor 16:19.

 

The identification of Paul as author is of 4th Century Catholic origin.

Much of Catholicism is within Protestantism as Replacement Theology

and all its "bedfellows" were retained by the "Reformers" and contaminate

theology.

 

"a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" 

 

That's funny. God used a woman to do a mans jOB?

 

Anyhoo, my Bible doesn't say it was written by Paul, and mine is a so-called Protestant Bible, before the KJV.

So I take it you don't believe the KJV?

Are you saying that the KJV teaches the so-called 'replacement theology'? My aren't you bold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

There is no way to broad brush how many Jews do or don't remember their heritage.

 

During the Third Reich many Jews knew they were Jews yet there were also a number of "Germans" who were surprised to find out they were actually Jewish. This wasn't/isn't unique, as the same is true in many other countries.

 

One of the things many find interesting about checking into their ancestry is finding out their heritage. It's fairly common to hear folks talk about how they didn't know they were Jewish, Germanic, Indian or whatever.

 

Yes, some non-religious Jews still identify themselves as Jews. Others know they have Jewish ancestry but don't consider themselves to be Jews, and still others no longer even know of their Jewish ancestry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The Epistle Of Paul The Apostle to the Hebrews.

Written from Italy to the Hebrews by Timothy.


You do know that title is not inspired right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yes, and how many centuries does that cover exactly?
My point is you don't know any depth of the history of mankind's past to 'argue' the point. Hundreds of generations have disappeared of mankind without any hint of their past.
What makes you think Jews are any different than that?
They aren't. We are all human, and we forget.
I could use hundreds of 'examples' of humankind that cannot trace, nor remember their lineage, beyond a hundred years.
No matter the records kept, they tend to wear out and be forgotten, for lack of 'need to know'.
Yes, there may be some who do, yet the vast majority of humans just don't worry about it.
They live in the 'now', and since their families before them lived 'hard' lives, it didn't matter to them about their lineage.
I may be wrong, but I doubt it.


In other words, it matters not what proof I present, it would not be good enough for you.......

Good way to discuss something.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Hebrews is anonomous for a very good reason - it was written by a woman.
Hebrews was written by Priscilla (of Priscilla and Aquila), a Heleinistic Jew
and not a Palestinian Jew. Priscilla and Aquila were well educated Jews
and accompanied Paul. See Acts 18, Romans 16:3 and 1 Cor 16:19.

The identification of Paul as author is of 4th Century Catholic origin.
Much of Catholicism is within Protestantism as Replacement Theology
and all its "bedfellows" were retained by the "Reformers" and contaminate
theology.

"a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump"


I am gonna have to ask you to substantiate that claim.

The author is not identified.

The speculation that Paul wrote it comes not from some 4th century dude, but from comparing the phrasing and terms used, and from the knowledge displayed suiting a professor of Judaism - therefore Paul is the most likely candidate.
But it is not stated.

I personally think it was Paul.

The likelihood of it being a woman is extremely low considering it was written primarily to Jews, and hence would not be accepted by Jewish people as having any authority.
I understand you saying that is why it is anonymous, but then how can you prove your argument?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I am gonna have to ask you to substantiate that claim.

The author is not identified.

 

Priscilla AND Aquila (wife and husband) INSTRUCTED Apollos (in other words they were teachers) AND they traveled with Paul extensively. 

The authorship of Hebrews is generally attributed to Apollos, HOWEVER, if so, Apollos would have attached HIS NAME to the document. 

A woman author would not have garnered "respect" in the Jewish community.  The document stands on its own merits.

 

Acts 18:24-26  And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

In other words, it matters not what proof I present, it would not be good enough for you.......

Good way to discuss something.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to infer that I was discussing with you.

I thought you were making 'points' to prove something you say was a 'fact'.

 

You did say, "Not speculation - fact."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Because if you know something to be true you know it to be a fact.

I know these people personally. They are not practising Judaism. In two cases not for several generations. In one I am not aware of the duration.
Covenant or said something about a few generations.

My experience with the issue disproves his speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


Priscilla AND Aquila (wife and husband) INSTRUCTED Apollos (in other words they were teachers) AND they traveled with Paul extensively.
The authorship of Hebrews is generally attributed to Apollos, HOWEVER, if so, Apollos would have attached HIS NAME to the document.
A woman author would not have garnered "respect" in the Jewish community. The document stands on its own merits.


Acts 18:24-26 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.


Thank you for your explanation.
It is no more reliable than various other speculations, but as much a possibility as others.

The (earthly) author is not able to be deduced with certainty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This Jewish genealogy bit is pretty stupid in my opinion.  It is a smokescreen to cover the tracks of bad theology designed to get people confused and OBsessed over genealogies that may or may not be proven. 

 

oh, wait...

 

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and GENEALOGIES....

 

Why does Paul give us this instruction?  Because in the end it becomes a matter of speculation. 

 

The Book of Hebrews

I never said that I had prOBlems understanding it, but then again, Genevan can't understand why Peter would say that Paul's letters were hard to understand....so apparently this is again a novice who is oversimplifying things to the point that he has erased all of the "prOBlem passages." 

The doctrinal prOBlem passages contained in the book of Hebrews are well documented everywhere.  Hebrews 6:1-6 has been giving fundamentalist "scholars" fits for decades.  That is just one example.  Sure - everybody has their own pet answer for all of these prOBlem passages, but the fact is that Hebrews presents more difficulties than any of the other Pauline epistles.  Anybody who has done intensive study of the NT knows that. 

 

Invicta

yes the title in many KJV editions says it was Paul who wrote it, but not all editions carry that title.  As DaveW said, the title is not inspired - the text of Scripture is.  And again, this only demonstrates the difficulties the book presents, as we are not even 100% sure that Paul wrote it.  I personally think he did - but very early.  And the title says it all - If Paul did write it (and I think he did), he did not write it to any local church, or the pastor of a local church, as all of his other epistles are.  He wrote it to the Hebrews.

Further, when I said "Pauline Epistles" I defined that as Romans-Philemon, so your point is moot anyway.

 

But all of this is digression from the main point.  We somehow got derailed from the main topic by this smokescreen about Jewish ancestry.  You see, we are not discussing the text of Scripture anymore, just wasting time trying to determine who is a "real" Jew and who is not.

 

The text of Scripture in the OT, when dealing with covenant God made with Israel is explicitly clear.  It deals with a physical seed that is innumerable dwelling in the land God promised to Abraham, Isaac, and JacOB, being ruled over by David, and the Messiah who comes from David's line, who we know to be Jesus CHrist.

 

Covenanter says all of the promises made to OT Israel have been fulfilled in Christ, and that we - the church - are somehow recipients of these promises.  This denies the plain wording of the passages that have been listed.   So he (and others) do 3 things - they shove as much as they can into the past, even though they have to deny the literal wording of the passages, and then what they can't explain they allegorize away.  Finally, instead of believing the plain statements of Rev. 20 (a physical kingdom on this present earth ruled over by Jesus Christ), they shove the Kingdom Age out into the Eternal age as described in Rev. 21-22.  Thus, they take part of the OT covenants with Israel, and apply them to the church, and they take some of the OT covenants with Israel and shove them into the eternal age. 

 

I have attempted to demonstrate that they end up ignoring, twisting, and perverting Scripture in order to get this all to work.  If a person just reads the Scriptures as they are, they could never come up with some of the stuff that these guys are promoting - like the absurd interpretation of Luke 21:20 being the Roman armies.  NOBody would get that interpretation in a 1,000 years just by reading the Bible.  That interpretation comes from man trying to read history back into the Bible.  It certainly has no SOUND Biblical support at all.  Of course, he is quick to condemn us for using "outside sources" for dating, as if he does not use any "outside sources" for his information.  (Who is he trying to kid anyway?)

 

Covenanter says the New Covenant is completely fulfilled in Christ, and cites Hebrews 8:10-12 as proof.  But he completely ignores the fact that part of that covenant was that nOBody would be allowed to teach about the Lord anymore, because that knowledge would already be present with them.  I listed the verses earlier, but here they are again - Zech. 13:1-6, Jer. 32:36-44, Jer. 31:31-34 and other similar passages.  These passages are clearly not speaking of the Eternal Age (Rev. 21-22), but something that will happen on THIS earth, before it is destroyed.  He just can't seem to grasp that there is a chronological order to the events listed in Rev. 19 (2nd coming of Christ), Rev. 20 (the 1,000 year reign of Christ on this earth), then Rev. 21-22 (the New Heaven, New Earth, and New Jerusalem). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 10 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
    • Razor went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      First Post
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • 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...