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.

Why I Left The Pre-Trib Position


Ukulelemike

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The Gospels were not written to "the church", they were written to Israel.

If you want to read what is specifically written to "the church", read Paul's Epistles.

This is where the 4th Century Catholic church "went wrong" and continue to this very day.

Replacement Theology "remnants" are found throughout the Protestant demoninations as well.

There will be God's servants of the house of Israel (genetic Israelites) preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom during the Tribulation.

 

Acts 10, 11, 13. Peter preached the gospel to Cornelius and his crew (Gentiles), then Paul introduced and preached the gospel to a mix of Jews and Gentiles?

 

Key verses from Peter: Acts 10:34-45

Key verses from Paul: Acts 13:26-39.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 389
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Galatians 2:1-3

Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 

And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,
but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
 
So, 14 years later, the original 12 are still in Jerusalem, preaching the Hebrew Gosple of the Kingdom,
 and preaching that Gentiles must OBey the Law (at least when they show up in Israel, anyway)

 

Galatians 2:7

But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision
was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
 
AD 66 - 2 Peter 3:15-16
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul
also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;  As also in all his epistles,
speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they
that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
 
So, as late as 66 AD (4 years before the destruction of the Temple), Peter acknowledges that Paul
is writing scripture and that he finds Pauls epistles "hard to understand".   No wonder Catholics
chose "Peter" to be the first Pope.  It doesn't take much thinking to understand that the revelation
of the mystery that was revealed to Paul was gradual and took time to complete.
Paul:  Gospel of Grace, through Faith, without Works.
Peter: Gospel of the Kingdom, Mosaic Law still practiced
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The Gospels were not written to "the church", they were written to Israel.
If you want to read what is specifically written to "the church", read Paul's Epistles.
This is where the 4th Century Catholic church "went wrong" and continue to this very day.
Replacement Theology "remnants" are found throughout the Protestant demoninations as well.
There will be God's servants of the house of Israel (genetic Israelites) preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom during the Tribulation.

Show me a passage that puts Israelites preaching during the Trib, in the Scriptures....and I'll show you
an Angel doing the evangelizing.

Rev 14:6
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,


They will go to Hell, every one of them, except the 144,000.


Rev 14:9-11
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever:and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Rev 7:2-3
2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God:and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,
3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

Till. See it? Timetable . Pre-Wrath.


Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Galatians 2:1-3 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: So, 14 years later, the original 12 are still in Jerusalem, preaching the Hebrew Gosple of the Kingdom, and preaching that Gentiles must OBey the Law (at least when they show up in Israel, anyway) Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; AD 66 - 2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. So, as late as 66 AD (4 years before the destruction of the Temple), Peter acknowledges that Paul is writing scripture and that he finds Pauls epistles "hard to understand". No wonder Catholics chose "Peter" to be the first Pope. It doesn't take much thinking to understand that the revelation of the mystery that was revealed to Paul was gradual and took time to complete. Paul: Gospel of Grace, through Faith, without Works. Peter: Gospel of the Kingdom, Mosaic Law still practiced
Mat 24:14 14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. Sounds like the Kingdom Gospel is to all Nations, doesn't it? Anishinaabe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

Galatians 2:1-3

Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 

And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,
but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
 
So, 14 years later, the original 12 are still in Jerusalem, preaching the Hebrew Gosple of the Kingdom,
 and preaching that Gentiles must OBey the Law (at least when they show up in Israel, anyway)

 

Galatians 2:7

But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision
was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
 
AD 66 - 2 Peter 3:15-16
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul
also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;  As also in all his epistles,
speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they
that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
 
So, as late as 66 AD (4 years before the destruction of the Temple), Peter acknowledges that Paul
is writing scripture and that he finds Pauls epistles "hard to understand".   No wonder Catholics
chose "Peter" to be the first Pope.  It doesn't take much thinking to understand that the revelation
of the mystery that was revealed to Paul was gradual and took time to complete.
Paul:  Gospel of Grace, through Faith, without Works.
Peter: Gospel of the Kingdom, Mosaic Law still practiced

 

 

That doesn't even make sense.

Yes Peter continued with the 'Jewish' people. Yes Paul went to the Gentiles. Both preaching the same gospel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

Your view changes the truth of the Gospel to say there is salvation two different ways.

 

Do you think Acts 2:38 is a 'different' salvation than ours? I bet you think the 'Jews' had to be baptized in order to have 'remission' for their sins.

I do know people that believe your way, and that is what they believe.

 

That is not Baptist, nor Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Show me a passage that puts Israelites preaching during the Trib, in the Scriptures....and I'll show you
an Angel doing the evangelizing.


Rev 14:6
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,


They will go to Hell, every one of them, except the 144,000.
 

So, in the context of Matthew chapter 24, Jesus is giving instructions to "the angel" that will be preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom,

and warning the angel that he must flee (and pray that it not be on the Sabbath day), because GREAT TRIBULATION

is coming such as has never been on the earth and never shall be? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

So, in the context of Matthew chapter 24, Jesus is giving instructions to "the angel" that will be preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom,

and warning the angel that he must flee (and pray that it not be on the Sabbath day), because GREAT TRIBULATION

is coming such as has never been on the earth and never shall be? 

 

College training, such as you have OBtained, is useless trash that means 'man knows better than God's scriptures, cause it couldn't be THAT clear!'

The scriptures ARE that clear, we just need to trust God over mens opinions when they call it 'rightly dividing'. When they use that phrase, that should ring bells!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

So, in the context of Matthew chapter 24, Jesus is giving instructions to "the angel" that will be preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom,
and warning the angel that he must flee (and pray that it not be on the Sabbath day), because GREAT TRIBULATION
is coming such as has never been on the earth and never shall be?


He gives no instruction, concerning the angel, He simply says it must happen, then the end comes.

It was OBviously a prophecy of the same event as Rev. 14, because He was answering their prayer, to tell them of the end of the world events.

Here is the wording again:

Mat 24:14
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

It starts with "And".
Which means : 'this also'.

The end of this verse completes a thought.

This is only information.

He isnt telling them that they will do it.

He is telling them what they asked:

Mat 24:3
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

So why wouldn't it tie in with Revelation?

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

College training, such as you have OBtained, is useless trash that means 'man knows better than God's scriptures, cause it couldn't be THAT clear!'

The scriptures ARE that clear, we just need to trust God over mens opinions when they call it 'rightly dividing'. When they use that phrase, that should ring bells!

I don't believe you have any idea of my educational attainments.  The most important thing in a Christian's life is his relationship with the Holy Spirit.  If the Ego/Self has not been "dethroned", then the Holy Spirit sits idly by.  Unfortunately in these "last days" that is most often the case, and very very few have discovered the key to "walking in the Spirit". 

 

Anyway, Prophet seems to conclude that Israelites (genetic Hebrews) will have no part in evangelization during the Tribulation.  I simply posted an excerpt from Matthew 24...

 

Those who hold "remnants" of Catholic "Replacement Theology" reject any future role for Jesus' Hebrew kinsmen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't believe you have any idea of my educational attainments. The most important thing in a Christian's life is his relationship with the Holy Spirit. If the Ego/Self has not been "dethroned", then the Holy Spirit sits idly by. Unfortunately in these "last days" that is most often the case, and very very few have discovered the key to "walking in the Spirit".

Anyway, Prophet seems to conclude that Israelites (genetic Hebrews) will have no part in evangelization during the Tribulation. I simply posted an excerpt from Matthew 24...

Those who hold "remnants" of Catholic "Replacement Theology" reject any future role for Jesus' Hebrew kinsmen.

And those who rightly divide the Word know that the Hebrews will be restored in the millennium, and Christ will reign from David's throne for a thousand years.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Covenanter,

the only prOBlem with your nice little treatise here is those pesky little words in the Holy Bible.  Israel is NOT enjoying peace right now.  Israel is NOT the head of the Nations.  Christ is NOT reigning from Jerusalem.  Isaiah 11 has NOT come to pass, with a regenerated animal kingdom that lives in peace with each other, as it was in the Garden of Eden.  The promises of Scripture are that Jesus Christ would return to this earth PHYSICALLY, and reign over the entire planet with "a rod of iron."  Revelation 20 specifically states that this reign would last for 1,000 years - and it says that SIX TIMES. 

I don't know about you, but I think that the Lord is not a liar, and that the Lord says what He means, and means what He says.  So if the Lord says that Christ will return to the earth and reign over a kingdom on this earth PHYSICALLY for 1,000 years prior to the NH&NE....well, I kinda think that He meant what He said, and that it will  come to pass literally...just like He said.  Anything less than a literal fulfillment of the words in Revelation 20 makes God a liar.

 

We are right back to the same old prOBlem.  I believe that every single word of Scripture is true, and we cannot change one word to fit our theology.  Your system is constantly overlooking words, redefining words, or simply ignoring the plain meaning of the words. 

 

Just because Peter quotes the OT in Acts 2 and Acts 3 does not mean that those verses literally came to pass - they OBviously did NOT.  They were expecting Christ to return to the EARTH - as promised by the angels in Acts 1!  Did Christ return to the earth? NOT YET.  And until Christ returns to the earth, there remains a ton of prophecies to be fulfilled.

You didn't read my post. Perfect fulfilment of OT prophecy will only occur in the NH&NE. In the millennium the world is populated by increasingly rebellious sinners, just waiting for Satan to lead them in rebellion. The SOULS of dead saints are reigning - a spiritual first resurrection, NOT a bodily resurrection. That must wait for the second coming. 

 

You accuse me of not reading words, but you reject the simple reading & make the words mean what your imposed interpretation demands. Until you allow Rev. 1 to have its clear meaning, you will be misunderstand all prophecy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Is there a correlation between the Kingdom of Heaven, Kingdom of God and the Gospel of the Circumcision, Gospel of the Uncircumcision?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Prophet1

I don't know if you realize this but this quotation from you is a dispensational position promoted by Scofield. 

Is this sarcasm from you, or do you really believe this?

I can't tell if this is sarcasm because you did not indicate with a smiley face or anything.

If you really believe this to be true, then you are very hypocritical in your bashing of Scofield, because this is what he promotes in his reference Bible.

 

????????

 

"And those that rightly divide the Word know that the Hebrews will be restored in the millennium, and Christ will reign from David's throne for a thousand years."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Is there a correlation between the Kingdom of Heaven, Kingdom of God and the Gospel of the Circumcision, Gospel of the Uncircumcision?  

The LORD is King. The OT is in no doubt of that. The Kingdom that was at hand at the beginning of Jesus' ministry would be the kingdom Peter proclaimed in Acts 2 - the resurrection of Jesus. We've discussed possible differences on another thread. 

 

Paul in Galatians makes it very clear that there is only one Gospel and no other. Paul CANNOT be suggesting different valid Gospels for the circumcision and uncircumcision. The same Gospel can be given different slants, appealing to those who know the Law or not. See Acts 17 for the Gospel preached to the Athenians. In Galatians 3 he shows the same one Gospel for all, using the promises to Abraham.

 

Of course there is correlation, but not what I think you are suggesting. And there will not be a different Gospel in tribulation, or millennium, or whenever. See Acts 26.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't believe you have any idea of my educational attainments.  The most important thing in a Christian's life is his relationship with the Holy Spirit.  If the Ego/Self has not been "dethroned", then the Holy Spirit sits idly by.  Unfortunately in these "last days" that is most often the case, and very very few have discovered the key to "walking in the Spirit". 

 

Anyway, Prophet seems to conclude that Israelites (genetic Hebrews) will have no part in evangelization during the Tribulation.  I simply posted an excerpt from Matthew 24...

 

Those who hold "remnants" of Catholic "Replacement Theology" reject any future role for Jesus' Hebrew kinsmen.

 

No, but you show your attainments on here, and it represents the same mumbo jumbo that most colleges teach as 'fact' when they determine those 'facts' by their 'traditions'.

You do state you went to a Bible College in your bio, by the way.

 

Did they stick to the KJV? Were they reliable in that field? Why would you expect they would be when it comes to teaching what the Bible actually says? Let's check their site.

 

 "The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are without error or misstatement in their moral and spiritual teaching and record of historical facts. They are without error or defect of any kind."

 

Sounds somewhat sound?

 

"Inasmuch as the University is interdenominational " - Oops! that doesn't sound too well!

 

"Theological Distinctives: The Articles of Faith, presented here as originally conceived by the founders of the organization, has been and continues to be the stated theological position of Biola University. Where “man” is used referring to the human race it includes both genders. In addition, the following theological distinctives indicate the organization’s understanding of and teaching position on certain points that could be subject to various interpretations.

In fulfillment of God’s historical purpose for humanity to rule and establish God’s kingdom on earth (Gen. 1:28; Ps. 8:4-8; Matt. 6:10; Heb. 2:6-9), the Scriptures teach a millennial reign of Christ with His saints on earth following His literal return. The nation of Israel, having been redeemed, will play a central role in bringing the blessings of salvation to all nations during the millennium in fulfillment of biblical prophecies (e.g., Is. 2:1-4; 11:1-12; Jer. 23:5-6; Ezek. 37; Amos 9:9-15; Zech. 14; Matt. 19:28; Acts 1:6; 3:19-21; Rev. 20:4-6). Following the millennium, this kingdom will be merged into the eternal kingdom (I Cor. 15:22-28).

Before these millennial events, the believers will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air (I Thess. 4:13-17). The time of this “rapture” is unknown, and thus believers are to live constantly watchful and ready."

Wait a minute, what is this?

"originally conceived by the founders of the organization".

They are the prOBlem? PrOBably.

 

I am awaiting an email from them on which Bible version they recommend in their classroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Sorry to "disappoint you", but I went to the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, (associated with J. Vernon McGee)

There were no corrupted versions of the Bible used at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles

The only other "versions" that I was aware of at that time was the (old) American Standard Version and the Revised Version ("reversed version"). 

I never even heard the mention of any "Geneva" Bible while at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles.

All my memorization of Scripture was in the King James, which the Holy Spirit uses to bring verses to my attention

to this very day, so I can find them on my hyper-linked on-line BLB.

 

No, but you show your attainments on here, and it represents the same mumbo jumbo that most colleges teach as 'fact' when they determine those 'facts' by their 'traditions'.

You do state you went to a Bible College in your bio, by the way.

 

Did they stick to the KJV? Were they reliable in that field? Why would you expect they would be when it comes to teaching what the Bible actually says? Let's check their site.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Prophet1
I don't know if you realize this but this quotation from you is a dispensational position promoted by Scofield.
Is this sarcasm from you, or do you really believe this?
I can't tell if this is sarcasm because you did not indicate with a smiley face or anything.
If you really believe this to be true, then you are very hypocritical in your bashing of Scofield, because this is what he promotes in his reference Bible.

????????

A stopped clock is right, twice a day.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Prophet

My point is very simple.

You come on this forum telling us that "dispensationalism" is an outcropping of Bible correctors, yet you espouse a position that is held by dispensationalists.  That is why your statements are so outlandish.

It is clear to me that you don't even know what dispensationalism IS, yet you continue to attack it, even when you hold to a moderate/mild form of it!!!

 

That's why I have been advocating for you to take a more reasonable position, and re-think your attacks on a position that you hold to.  You didn't even know that what you believed is considered (at least in part) dispensational!

 

Incredible!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Prophet
My point is very simple.
You come on this forum telling us that "dispensationalism" is an outcropping of Bible correctors, yet you espouse a position that is held by dispensationalists. That is why your statements are so outlandish.
It is clear to me that you don't even know what dispensationalism IS, yet you continue to attack it, even when you hold to a moderate/mild form of it!!!

That's why I have been advocating for you to take a more reasonable position, and re-think your attacks on a position that you hold to. You didn't even know that what you believed is considered (at least in part) dispensational!

Incredible!

If a dispensationalist says: "Jesus Saves", and I say "Amen", does that mean I now espouse his theology?

Ridiculous!

Dispensational Eschatology holds that the Restoration begins in the Tribulation, and the Church has been Raptured.

I've said nothing of the sort.

The Kingdom is restored in the 1,000 year reign, when Jesus reigns in Jerusalem.

All the elect will serve as His ministers, some over 10 cities, and etc.

This is Scriptural, so if a dispensationalist says "amen" to my post, I don't retract in horror.
As I said, a stopped clock is right twice a day, and 2 sincere Bible Students ought to have much common ground.

The Bible is the Final Authority in all matters of Faith and Practice.
Scofield undermines that authority.
No Baptist has any business studying that inferior system.

Back to the Book.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Prophet

You have been poisoned by someone who wants you to think ONE THING about dispensationalism.  Scofield is not the be-all/end-all of dispensationalism.  If you had done your homework you would have known that.  But you have not, and you will not.  You simply have no idea as to what you are talking about in this matter.  Not all dispensationalists believe in a pre-tribulation rapture of the church.  I posted elsewhere some basic tenets of the mildest forms of dispensationalism - and you hold to those tenets. 

Dispensationalism covers a huge range of varying beliefs just as the term "independent Baptist does."  Yet you try to lump everything under one umbrella, when it simply does not fit.  Your OBsession with Scofield has blinded you to broader aspects of what basic dispensationalism really is.  Of course, if you were really honest with yourself, and did that homework, you would end up having to admit that, Yes, in fact, you are a dispensationalist.  (Horrors!)

 

Moving on!

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   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 7 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • 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...