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.

Why I Left The Pre-Trib Position


Ukulelemike

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Anyone who cannot see the blatant differences in how God has dealt with man throughout the ages of HIStory and into the future, is completely brainwashed by men. Men call it dispensationalism, I call it rightly dividing His Word (I call it that because God calls it that).

 

IMO, anyone who blends the Bible all together to attempt to serve the Lord or understand the Word stays in a constant state of confusion and actually seems to stay in a constant state of denial about their confusion.

Huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I'm pretrib and most of the IFB I know in real life are pretrib. For some reason there is a group of Reformed that like to hang out here. I choose not to debate them.

What about us Ind. Baptists that aren't carried away with the popular doctrine-of-the-week?
Care to debate the Scriptures with us?

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Gorship

Don't feel alone.  When I first joined this forum a few years ago, I debated these guys.  But I soon learned that it is the same people pushing their agenda at any and every opportunity.  When they are confronted with the specific wording of the text, they can't handle it, and allegorize it away.  Of course, they can't see it, and they deny it, and then they accuse US of changing the Scriptures.  So the whole "debate" becomes fruitless....same arguments with the same people going 'round and 'round in the same circles.  So I, as Matthew has stated, have chosen to largely ignore them as well....there does not seem to be much edification in these endless debates.   They have an agenda, and will not rest until they cram it down our throats.

 

Prophet

I have debated your cohorts in times past.  I can say from experience that the previous debates revealed that they did not in fact want to debate the Scriptures - they have in times past ignored the plain wording of the Scriptures.  And you are one to talk....every time this debate comes up, the first thing out of your "mouth" is not Scripture, but attacks via "guilt by association" by name calling, and labelling us as "Darbyites" etc. 

 

The IFB churches I was raised in were all moderate dispensationalists and pre-tribulation rapture of the church.  Most IFB's WERE, and I think many still are. 

 

In Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Gorship

Don't feel alone.  When I first joined this forum a few years ago, I debated these guys.  But I soon learned that it is the same people pushing their agenda at any and every opportunity.  When they are confronted with the specific wording of the text, they can't handle it, and allegorize it away.  Of course, they can't see it, and they deny it, and then they accuse US of changing the Scriptures.  So the whole "debate" becomes fruitless....same arguments with the same people going 'round and 'round in the same circles.  So I, as Matthew has stated, have chosen to largely ignore them as well....there does not seem to be much edification in these endless debates.   They have an agenda, and will not rest until they cram it down our throats.

 

Prophet

I have debated your cohorts in times past.  I can say from experience that the previous debates revealed that they did not in fact want to debate the Scriptures - they have in times past ignored the plain wording of the Scriptures.  And you are one to talk....every time this debate comes up, the first thing out of your "mouth" is not Scripture, but attacks via "guilt by association" by name calling, and labelling us as "Darbyites" etc. 

 

The IFB churches I was raised in were all moderate dispensationalists and pre-tribulation rapture of the church.  Most IFB's WERE, and I think many still are. 

 

In Christ,

 

And yet you go on debating...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Actually there is very little real debate on this forum. There is a lot of arguing but very little debate.

 

A few years ago the Admin of this site asked for a few volunteers to debate the pre trib rapture doctrine with the stated web sites position as being PRE TRIB.  i guess that has taken a back seat nowadays with post trib moderators and all.

 

Debate is listening to a point, then responding to the point made. By saying, I think what you said may have certain failing this is why-....

Arguing is not responding to a point made and just continuing with one´s opinion. By saying__________________ and not making any real reply to the point made beforehand.

 

'?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

 

Notice that the opening comments state that the position of this board is PRE TRIB.

 

pastorj and I entered into a debate that was civil, considerate and to my way of thinking, very thorough and of course I believe that pastorj and I did "win" the debate.

 

Not much debating going on around here any more. Just a bunch of shouting each other down and snarky nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

While I don't have the first clue about any of this eschatological stuff, I did have a quick read through the thread you linked to, Calvary, and the difference in temperament/attitude to discussion then vs now is striking. That is just one thread, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The whole prOBlem as I see it is the refusal to recognize Israel's proper place in the future plan of God. Whatever position you hold on the nation of Israel will be reflected in your eschatology. A lot of this is really a heart issue toward the Jews. 

 

If you see the end of Israel in 70 AD and all her promises being sifted to the chuch then you will be a preterist/amillennialist. (The olive tree was chopped down, cast into the fire and a new tree planted.)

 

If you believe that God does have some future with Israel but you still fail to distinguish between them and the church then most likely you will hold a postmillennial/prewrath position. (The olive tree was grafted into the wild branches).

 

If you believe that God still has a future plan for the nation of Israel in restoring the kingdom to them then you will be a premillenialist. (The wild branches were grafted into the olive tree).  

 

People forget that the bible is a Jewish book and we Gentiles (which the church mostly consists of) were merely grafted into the covenants and promises given to Israel. We weren't granted the license to hijack them.

 

The proper placement of Israel is mandatory and should be first in foremost when rightly dividing the word of truth. The ONLY exception is in the Pauline epistles. Paul being the apostle to the Gentiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Gorship
Don't feel alone. When I first joined this forum a few years ago, I debated these guys. But I soon learned that it is the same people pushing their agenda at any and every opportunity. When they are confronted with the specific wording of the text, they can't handle it, and allegorize it away. Of course, they can't see it, and they deny it, and then they accuse US of changing the Scriptures. So the whole "debate" becomes fruitless....same arguments with the same people going 'round and 'round in the same circles. So I, as Matthew has stated, have chosen to largely ignore them as well....there does not seem to be much edification in these endless debates. They have an agenda, and will not rest until they cram it down our throats.

Prophet
I have debated your cohorts in times past. I can say from experience that the previous debates revealed that they did not in fact want to debate the Scriptures - they have in times past ignored the plain wording of the Scriptures. And you are one to talk....every time this debate comes up, the first thing out of your "mouth" is not Scripture, but attacks via "guilt by association" by name calling, and labelling us as "Darbyites" etc.

The IFB churches I was raised in were all moderate dispensationalists and pre-tribulation rapture of the church. Most IFB's WERE, and I think many still are.

In Christ,

No one can read my posts, and not see that I debate with Scripture.
Yes, I have pointed out those false teachers who propogated the heresy that now permeates the IFB for one reason.
Simply to show a relationship between two men who didn't believe that the KJV is Perfect, and the doctrines they espoused, and how they descended from Calvinism, etc.

Anyone who is honest, will admit that Darby and Scofield put dispensational and pretrib doctrines on the map for American Baptists.
Add Spurgeon's endorsement of Calvin, and we are well on our way.

These men made Torrey, and Rice, and other Bible Correctors more palatable, and they in turn, pushed the pretrib.

So my point is to show causation.
To tie in the doubting of God's Word to false doctrine.

Go back and read my posts.
Aside from an occasional history lesson, they are mostly Scripture.

The biggest hang up, in this debate, is the one that says 'Jesus was talking to Israel, in Matthew 24, when He clearly made every effort to show us that He wasn't.

Rev2&3 are written to churches, who are right on some things, wrong on others.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The whole prOBlem as I see it is the refusal to recognize Israel's proper place in the future plan of God. Whatever position you hold on the nation of Israel will be reflected in your eschatology. A lot of this is really a heart issue toward the Jews.

If you see the end of Israel in 70 AD and all her promises being sifted to the chuch then you will be a preterist/amillennialist. (The olive tree was chopped down, cast into the fire and a new tree planted.)

If you believe that God does have some future with Israel but you still fail to distinguish between them and the church then most likely you will hold a postmillennial/prewrath position. (The olive tree was grafted into the wild branches).

If you believe that God still has a future plan for the nation of Israel in restoring the kingdom to them then you will be a premillenialist. (The wild branches were grafted into the olive tree).

People forget that the bible is a Jewish book and we Gentiles (which the church mostly consists of) were merely grafted into the covenants and promises given to Israel. We weren't granted the license to hijack them.

The proper placement of Israel is mandatory and should be first in foremost when rightly dividing the word of truth. The ONLY exception is in the Pauline epistles. Paul being the apostle to the Gentiles.

Post-millennial and Pre-Wrath are two vastly different positions.

Pre-Wrath position sees God as restoring Israel, when He Himself comes to reign, in His coming Kingdom of 1,000 years.
The saved, no matter their race, will be resurrected/ harvested alive from the Earth, before God pours out His Wrath on the rest of the Earth for taking the Mark/ annointing a false messiah.

Dan 12:12
12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.


Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It seems I've heard this demand before: "show me a single verse that shows ___________"

This is not the way the Holy Spirit has constructed Scripture.  There is no "single verse"

or "single chapter" that contains all the information about any major doctrine.

It's more like "here a little, there a little".

 

As far as Israel is concerned, the time-line is laid out in Daniel 9:24-27, and there is still one "missing" 7 year period.

Jesus refers twice to this prophecy - once in Matthew 24, and once in Mark 13, when he refers to the Abomination.

 

Now, with the help of the Holy Spirit, all these bits of information concerning the future role of Israel can be pieced-together.

Without the help of the Holy Spirit, you can come up with virtually any "doctrine" that you can possibly think of.
 

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.  Mt. 24:14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I apologize I've not contributed much here of late-I have much yet to say, but between getting my animals ready for auction, church, work and such, my computer time has been limited. At work now, so I am limited in what I can say now.

 

Its odd_I have been now compared to Reformed, Preterist and Charismatic because of my belief in the pre-wrath rapture. Honestly, these are all positions I am opposed to. I hold firmly that I AM IFB, though some here seem to assume that one can't possibly be IFB unless every IFB jot and tittle are held to. Remember, there is an "I" in that name-Independent.   Perhaps someone ought to start a thread about What makes an IFB, an IFB.  Because we all know there is a vast array of people with very different ways of doing things that are called IFB. In fact, a lot of the more influential churches in the movement are very much into leader-worship and carnival-style antics, and to NOT do things that way would have one much disqualified as an IFB, and get you thrown out of their churches, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I have tried to keep the conversation courteous & Scriptural. A key point is the date of Revelation, & I discussed this in #87.

 

The vision was given for the encouragement & blessing of real suffering Christians, not for end-timers to make a fortune with their speculative books & films.

 

Our conversation should likewise be for encouragement & blessing. We may not agree, but we can still give & take encouragement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Whatever position you hold on the nation of Israel will be reflected in your eschatology. A lot of this is really a heart issue toward the Jews. 

 

Well, Calvary's point is that how and why people hold the positions they do is irrelevant to a discussion about the positions themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Covenanter

I could almost believe you if you participated in other discussions.  Since the only thing you want to discuss is eschatology, then it is apparent that you have an agenda.  You apparently think that having a pleasant demeanor must mean something, but this is only a personality trait, and not necessarily a sign of spirituality.  A pastor must defend the flock from wolves so a pastor's demeanor is not always "pleasant."  It is apparent to me that the only reason you hang out here is to promote your preterist views, and you insist upon dominating any thread concerning end times events.

 

It is really too bad that an Independent Baptist Forum that takes a pre-trib position is so dominated by those who are opposed to that position.  It is so nauseating to me that it takes away the pleasure of posting here.

 

In Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

 

The vision was given for the encouragement & blessing of real suffering Christians, not for end-timers to make a fortune with their speculative books & films.

 

 

It was given for those saints who will go through the Tribulation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Well, Calvary's point is that how and why people hold the positions they do is irrelevant to a discussion about the positions themselves.

It is relevant because it shows what's really at the heart of the issue.

 

Romans 11:17-24

 

[17] And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
[18] Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
[19] Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
[20] Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
[21] For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
[22] Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
[23] And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
[24] For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Covenanter

I could almost believe you if you participated in other discussions.  Since the only thing you want to discuss is eschatology, then it is apparent that you have an agenda.  You apparently think that having a pleasant demeanor must mean something, but this is only a personality trait, and not necessarily a sign of spirituality.  A pastor must defend the flock from wolves so a pastor's demeanor is not always "pleasant."  It is apparent to me that the only reason you hang out here is to promote your preterist views, and you insist upon dominating any thread concerning end times events.

 

It is really too bad that an Independent Baptist Forum that takes a pre-trib position is so dominated by those who are opposed to that position.  It is so nauseating to me that it takes away the pleasure of posting here.

 

In Christ,

 

That is so uncalled for.

 

Various 'thoughts', on what we believe, bring out our differences.

And that helps us be able to accept the fact that others might have something to add to what we don't already believe, or strengthen our own belief.

I have grown on this forum, and you, too, Bro. Steve, have been a help in those areas of discussion that I may still have need in strengthening. 

I hope all may learn a few things about the 'Independent' part of IFB.

We are not all the same.

 

And, we don't need to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

That's irrelevant. Both come to their conclusions from misapplying scriptures directed towards Israel.

Show the evidence.
I say the same of Pre-Trib, it is made up out of whole cloth.

JOB wasn't Israeli.

JOB 14:12
12 So man lieth down, and riseth not:
till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake,
nor be raised out of their sleep.

But he knew that the resurrection takes place when Jesus told the Apostles of the Church it would:

Mat 24:29-31
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven:and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.


We all believe that God's Wrath is not for the Saved.

What PreTribbers stumble over, is when the Trib ends, and the Wrath begins.

And they think that God can't count:

Rev 20:4-6
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them:and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection:on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Trib Saints in the First Res....just like Jesus, n JOB, n Daniel, n Paul said.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Covenanter

I could almost believe you if you participated in other discussions.  Since the only thing you want to discuss is eschatology, then it is apparent that you have an agenda.  You apparently think that having a pleasant demeanor must mean something, but this is only a personality trait, and not necessarily a sign of spirituality.  A pastor must defend the flock from wolves so a pastor's demeanor is not always "pleasant."  It is apparent to me that the only reason you hang out here is to promote your preterist views, and you insist upon dominating any thread concerning end times events.

 

It is really too bad that an Independent Baptist Forum that takes a pre-trib position is so dominated by those who are opposed to that position.  It is so nauseating to me that it takes away the pleasure of posting here.

 

In Christ,

That is NOT true Steve - have a look at "Covenanter's Content" & you will see my interest includes - music, humour, food & health, education, etc. A number of my posts have concerned a low carb diet approach to diabetes.

 

Only last evening I was addresing our local diabetes support group on my experience with a low carb, high fat diet - contrary to the professional approach that insists that carbs are essential for health. A doctor & 2 dieticians were present - I got cautious support from the doctor while the dietitians warned against what I recommended. Loss of brain function [don't you dare agree] & muscle wasting [i'm 75 & play lawn & table tennis - I wore my table tennis (local) Olympic gold] are included in the supposed dangers. The discussion will continue in a future meeting, & privately. That is an argument I am determined to win against the experts - who believe & teach what they have been taught. Six years ago I was becoming crippled & then I gave up eating carbs.

 

Certainly eschatology is a main interest because I consider that the political slant (Zionist) cause prOBlems & provokes persecution for indigenous Christians because Christianity is seen as western political rather than spiritual. Not just in Muslim countries, but also Hindu, Bhuddist, Atheist.

 

My posts counter the emphasis on "futurism" that lifts much of the New Testament from the present "dispensation" into a future millennium - where there is no such emphasis in Scripture. Certainly a glorious future is promised for all the redeemed, but we live now, & can trust our Saviour God to bring us to that glory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...