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

We are to teach sound doctrine, and especially in the last days when many will fall away from sound doctrine.

The LOCAL CHURCH is to be unified in their doctrine and ministry, but the Body of Christ will never be unified until the return of Jesus Christ. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Rev 14 really isnt that confusing even as a pre-trib..but you need at least verses 12 and 13.

Rev 14:12  Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Rev 14:13  And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.
Rev 14:14  And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
Rev 14:15  And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.
Rev 14:16  And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.

-- The few remaining pieces of wheat (those who have come to Christ in these times, and those martyred are reaped up and given blessing and rest)

Rev 14:17  And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.
Rev 14:18  And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.
Rev 14:19  And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.

Vine of the Earth is something different here, that was then cast into the winepress, thus the fruit of Satan is matured to its point and is now cast into judgment.

seems like the most straight forward approach to me. :hide:



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I still do not understand how this issue relates to salvation or whether one is a Christian.

God bless,
Larry

Read the Thread Title.
This is a discussion on Eschatology.
Find a thread on Salvation.
Be Happy.

:)

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Get right or get left!

We are told in Scriptures to always "be ready" because the Lord's coming for us in the Rapture (catching up) is imminent.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Titus 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live sOBerly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Titus 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Being "ready" for the Lord's coming should provoke us to live godly.

The apostle John said:

1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
1 John 3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

Neither the word "rapture", nor the word "imminent" are found in Scripture.

So try again to express yourself without manmade doctrinal words.

For instance, take away the word "imminent". Now search the Scriptures for a synonym, or synonymous concept, concerning our Lord's Return.

Call it the Resurrection, and not 'rapture', which is an abstract noun, anyway, and doesn't make sense in English as an event.
Search the Scriptures concerning the Resurrection.
You'll find 1 for the living, and one for the dead.

It will help.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Mike
There is more than one "rapture." That is where the "confusion" comes in, but only when we fail to "rightly divide." The raptures spoken of in the Gospels have nothing to do with the rapture of the church spoken of in I Thess. 4:13-18 - they are two separate events.
The reaping performed by the Lord in Revelation 14 is a "rapture" of the Tribulation saints, caught out just prior to the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is in fact a "pre-wrath" rapture - but that rapture is not the church, but Tribulation saints.

In Christ,

There are no "raptures", there are resurrections.
Are you claiming that the dead won't rise at our gathering in the clouds?
Even your pet verses, that gives NO timeline, IThes., tells us it is a resurrection, not a rapture.

Rapture is a euphoric feeling, Resurrection is an event.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Read the Thread Title.
This is a discussion on Eschatology.
Find a thread on Salvation.
Be Happy.

:)

Anishinaabe

It would have taken less words to just say, "get lost".

 

God bless,

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

What is discussed here is not bible doctrine, but personal interpretation. I was taught this interpretation when I was in the Brethren for many years.

The last Brethren preacher I heard was about 4 years ago. A really nice christian who died shortly after. My wife and I still visit his disabled wife when we can and take her CDs of our services.

On the last occasion, he said that when Jesus returned as in Acts 1, he would only be coming to the Jews, as Jesus was only speaking to Jews. Wrong. He was speaking to the apostles who were the leaders of the church.

We read in some of these posts that Matthew 24 was only regarding Jews as Jesus was speaking only to Jews, Again wrong. He was speaking to those he called to be the leaders of the church.

It was less than a week til His Resurrection, the first fruits of the coming harvest.
40 days after that, these same men began to turn the world upside, for the Church.
Jesus used the Word church in Matthew , prior to Matthew 24.
Matthew 24 was a private conversation with His Apostles of His Church.
Yet we are supposed to think that Jesus left out the little bit about them, the Apostles of His Church, not going through the Tribulation that He was warning them of.
Why would He warn them of this?
Why wouldn't He have told them of the Rescue at the last minute?
They werent gonna go through it, anyway.
They weren't even gonna be under Jewish law for 40 more years.

What difference did 50 days make?

Certainly all those Gentiles that got saved on Pentecost were gonna get confused by their leaders telling them that the Lord's Return would be preceded by the Great Tribulation, Right?

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I see allot of ideas (no passages of Scripture) that clearly explain why a small amount of folks might take a shaky stand against a pretrib catching away of the Church.

 

There are no single verses or passages of Scripture that directly say when this event will occur for any side of the argument.

 

Having said that, this is the sound way to realize the Bible truth on the subject.

 

The far greater amount of Scriptural evidence points to a pre trib catching away.

 

Some but a far smaller amount of evidence points to a pre wrath

 

ZERO evidence points to a post trib or mil.

 

All sides of the argument are basically conjecture but the greater amount of Bible evidence points to a pre trib catching away of the Church.

 

Anyone on here with the time could match any one passage of pre wrath with 5 or more pre trib. The amils have nothing but fantasizing in their approach.

 

This is a preponderance of evidence argument and not a beyond a reasonable doubt argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It would have taken less words to just say, "get lost".

God bless,
Larry

I don't want you to get lost.
I believe in Eternal Security, anyways.

;)

It just seems strange to complain about the subject matter of a particular thread, when you can go find a thread about that.

If you think there is an unimportant doctrine, in Scripture, tell me which one it is.

2Ti 4:2
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.



Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

True the bible is about far more than salvation.  But my point is this: Is the number one jOB of the Church to preach the gospel in order that sinners might be saved and equip those saved to do the same or is it to equip the saved to teach the rapture doctrine?  It seems to me that far too much time is spent on rapture and too little on salvation.  It also seems that the importance of teaching the rapture doctrine has become more important than believers being one in Christ.  It is splitting us apart at a time when we ought to be working together to  "Get the gospel out" and we ought to be "Putting the cookies down where the children can reach them."

 

God bless,

Larry

 

I don't want you to get lost.
I believe in Eternal Security, anyways.

;)

It just seems strange to complain about the subject matter of a particular thread, when you can go find a thread about that.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Maybe it really doesn't sound as strange as you make it sound.  Maybe if you could get past using childish sarcasm and engage in an adult conversation this would be a much friendlier place.

If you do not wish to engage seriously with another poster it would be more polite to just ignore the post. 

 

I will state the question plain enough that you can't mistake what it is about this time.

 

This thread has gotten really nasty, with name calling, impolite jabs, and just plain unfriendly behavior.  Now you might come up with some kind of argument that this is all good for the cause of Christ but I certainly hope not.  I do not see how God is glorified by what has been taking place here. 

 

Oh, and by the way, you win I am gone from this thread because I don't believe it is a place for an intelligent Christian conversation.

 

God bless,

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I Thess 4:16-17

v. 16 "...and the dead in Christ shall rise first."  RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD

v. 17 "Then we which ARE ALIVE and remain shall be CAUGHT UP TOGETHER with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: so shall we ever be with the Lord."

 

v. 17 - is not a "resurrection" for those saints will be CAUGHT UP without DYING.  They will be CHANGED, but not killed then resurrected.

 

If you look up the word "rapture" in Webster's 1828, the first and third definitions fit nicely.  We are taken up out of this world quickly, suddenly, with no warning, and literally just ripped right out of this world, and changed "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye."  I don't see a prOBlem with using the word since it is descriptive of what the Bible says will happen.  the Bible term in this passage is "caught up."  People who are alive at the time are not resurrected, they are taken and changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I see allot of ideas (no passages of Scripture) that clearly explain why a small amount of folks might take a shaky stand against a pretrib catching away of the Church.

 

There are no single verses or passages of Scripture that directly say when this event will occur for any side of the argument.

Read the Olivet prophecy e.g. -

Mark 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done

The great tribulation preceeds the destruction that took place in the life of many.    

 

Having said that, this is the sound way to realize the Bible truth on the subject.

 

The far greater amount of Scriptural evidence points to a pre trib catching away.

Read before "realizing." Jesus very clearly warns about the destruction & the great tribulation, & he gives clear instructions about how to recognise the signs when they should flee the city - as history records they did.

 

Some but a far smaller amount of evidence points to a pre wrath

How do you understand the words of Jesus when, speaking against the Jewish leaders (who recognised what he was saying against them) said, Mark 12:And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.

What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. 10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner: 11 this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? 12 And they sought to lay hold on him, but feared the people: for they knew that he had spoken the parable against them: and they left him, and went their way.

Paul writes of that in this way: 1 Thes. 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God

which in Judæa are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: 15 who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: 16 forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

That ad 70 event ENDS the wrath of God against "this generation." Why should a just & loving God perpetuate wrath against his people for 100 generations for the guilt of others? The Gospel is open to the Jews until Jesus returns despite the hate of corrupt churches down the ages. Jews are welcomed by the Gospel of Jesus when they come as sinners to him. And NO! God is not planning the future slaughter of them in a future trib. Unbelievers will be judged when Jesus comes for the resurrection/rapture for the saints. They will then suffer endless tribulation in hell.

2 Thes. 1:seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that OBey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 10 when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

  

  Must go.

ZERO evidence points to a post trib or mil.

 

All sides of the argument are basically conjecture but the greater amount of Bible evidence points to a pre trib catching away of the Church.

 

Anyone on here with the time could match any one passage of pre wrath with 5 or more pre trib. The amils have nothing but fantasizing in their approach.

 

This is a preponderance of evidence argument and not a beyond a reasonable doubt argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I Thess 4:16-17
v. 16 "...and the dead in Christ shall rise first." RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
v. 17 "Then we which ARE ALIVE and remain shall be CAUGHT UP TOGETHER with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: so shall we ever be with the Lord."

v. 17 - is not a "resurrection" for those saints will be CAUGHT UP without DYING. They will be CHANGED, but not killed then resurrected.

If you look up the word "rapture" in Webster's 1828, the first and third definitions fit nicely. We are taken up out of this world quickly, suddenly, with no warning, and literally just ripped right out of this world, and changed "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye." I don't see a prOBlem with using the word since it is descriptive of what the Bible says will happen. the Bible term in this passage is "caught up." People who are alive at the time are not resurrected, they are taken and changed.

My point was you can't cross reference the non-Scriptural word "rapture".
Because the event is a Resurrection, you can cross reference that word.



Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Wow.  I've not read through all of this, but quite honestly, I don't bother myself with end times theology.  Christ has died.  Christ has risen.  Christ will come again.  All else is just conjecture about what will likely happen long after we have passed from this earth. It is nothing to get worked up over.  :-)  What will come will come.  We have no control and no input into the matter.  All we can control is ourselves and our attitudes. 

KOB, that saying comes right out of the RCC.  I sang it growing up.  I think I had it memorized when a made the sacrament of first communion, in the second grade.  That is the sacrament right after first reconciliation (the same age, which is 7) where I had to confess my sins to the priest.  First communion is where the RCC practices substantiation where they believe the wine is the actual blood of Christ and the wafer is Jesus' body.  My mom used to say the priest in not Houdini.  The RCC uses witchcraft right on the alter with substantiation.  I had to drink fermented wine when I was 7.  Who gives alcohol to a 7 year old?  I mean, really?  Anyway, many Protestant churches say,  Christ has died.  Christ has risen.  Christ will come again.  The RCC dogma has bleed over into many Protestant churches.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Lots of twists and a major loss of consistency, which is what usually happens after 3 or 4 pages on a thread. It gets too demanding to follow as one wades through. In addition what you have is 1 or a couple of posters that dominate (nothing wrong with that, just saying) the conversation but they take on 2 or 3 other posters and it´s 1 guy arguing with 3 or 4 other guys over 2 or 3 other rabbit trails and the entirety continuity of the thread falls apart.

 

7 pages ago I asked you Mike where does the JCOC fit. You sort of played the importance of that down as if it really doesn´t matter.

But i does. It matters so much that I have yet to receive an answer form any pre wrath, post trib position to date.

You can´t place it in your scheme as it will demonstrate the fallacy of your position.

 

So, I still would like an answer.

 

Or at least encourage you to try to find it for yourself. If you did and do, you will dump the untenable potion you hold.

 

When does the JCOC occur?

 

In addition, I have not questioned your Christianity or salvation and neither has any one else here. You suggested that we question your IFB status, your faith etc. None of which is true.

In fact I mad eit a point to say that I don´t question your integrity or character as I do not know you personally and that is and never has been an issue.

 

I do wonder however why you seek to moderate a board that you are not in agreement with? Pre trib is the stated doctrinal position of this board. I also question why Matt has not weighed in on this OBvious conflict of interest.

 

Pre trib, pre wrath, post trib are by no means tests of fellowship, or a true test of one´s relationship with the Lord.

 

As a missionary I plant churches, then as they grow, mature and become autonomous I seek God´s will for a replacement of myself to lead the flock. Mike, I don´t care how faithful you might have been to the Lord, how active in the work and what a grand testimony you might have before the brethren. I would not however consider you as a candidate to any church that I have personally planted. How could I? What would that convey to the church I have pastored for x amount of years? Would that not necessarily be a major contradiction of myself before the flock?

 

Your position by my way of understanding is dead wrong, you haven´t been able to prove anything other than the fact that your ability to distinguish between the church, the Jew and the gentile is faulty. That seems to me to be the major failing of all Rosenthal induced positions, (Yes,... he is the gran daddy of your eschatology boy and girls).

 

Any one who confuses Matthew 24 with 1 Thess is not a very thorough Bible student.,

 

God bless,

calvary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

KOB, that saying comes right out of the RCC.  I sang it growing up.  I think I had it memorized when a made the sacrament of first communion, in the second grade.  That is the sacrament right after first reconciliation (the same age, which is 7) where I had to confess my sins to the priest.  First communion is where the RCC practices substantiation where they believe the wine is the actual blood of Christ and the wafer is Jesus' body.  My mom used to say the priest in not Houdini.  The RCC uses witchcraft right on the alter with substantiation.  I had to drink fermented wine when I was 7.  Who gives alcohol to a 7 year old?  I mean, really?  Anyway, many Protestant churches say,  Christ has died.  Christ has risen.  Christ will come again.  The RCC dogma has bleed over into many Protestant churches.   

 

Candlelight, what's your point? Is it that anyone who believes that Christ died, that Christ rose from the dead and that Christ will come again subscribes to Roman Catholicism?

 

And if so, do you reject any or all of the claims I just referred to, or are you a Roman Catholic too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Candlelight, what's your point? Is it that anyone who believes that Christ died, that Christ rose from the dead and that Christ will come again subscribes to Roman Catholicism?

 

And if so, do you reject any or all of the claims I just referred to, or are you a Roman Catholic too?

 

My point is that this is a man-made phrase by the RCC, Al.  Of course, I believe it (the wording is nice) but it is not in the KJV Bible.  It also appears in no MV on the planet.

Am I a Roman Catholic?  LOL  Far from it.  I left the RCC (in my mind) in the second grade.  By ninth grade, I convinced my parents that I didn't need to go faithfully, anymore.  My precious family has been sent to hell, b/c of the false doctrine of the RCC.  I have mentioned this before, but they are my biggest burden.

I also dabbled in witchcraft.  Not very heavily, but I did get Tarot Cards read, talk on physic hotlines, where I spent lots of money, and I used to do Tarot Cards for my friends, before the Lord took my down with a medical prOBlem in 1997.  I was the "Good Witch" telling people have wonderful their lives would be.  I thought it was harmless, but it wasn't.  My sister also dabbles in the occult, however, she is into haunted houses and mediums.  Many RCC's are into witchcraft, which stems from "substantiation" on the pulpit of the RCC.  Everyone I know who is into witchcraft, had or has ties to the RCC.  This is just part of my testimony, Al.  

Anyway, that is the primary point of my post.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

My point is that this is a man-made phrase by the RCC, Al.  Of course, I believe it (the wording is nice) but it is not in the KJV Bible.  It also appears in no MV on the planet.

 

So what if the RCC has used the phrase and it isn't in the Bible? It's a simple phrase and it's true (as you acknowledge), so it could be independently coined by any Christian. Or does the Catholic church get first dibs on the words and phrases we employ to talk about God?

 

As for using words and/or phrases not found in the KJV Bible, I've seen you do it all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Candlelight:

 

That saying is common to all Christian belief.  It dates back centuries and centuries.  Christians have been saying it from generation to generation.  It is a tradition, yet it is well rooted in Scripture.  It comes from Scripture. Not the exact wording, but the doctrine. It the essence of the Gospel.  Christ has died.  True?  Yes.  Christ has risen.  True?  Yes. Christ will come again.  True?  Yes.

 

So what is wrong with saying it? 

Disclaimer: I attend an Anglican church, and we say this every week right before Communion, which I find to be a lovely reminder and reaffirmation of our faith.  But we often said it in the last Baptist church I attended as well.  I think it is said in most liturgical churches.  Yes, it is said in Catholic churches, but I've heard it in Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Anglican....I could go on.  But it is an essential truth at the heart of Christianity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

So what if the RCC has used the phrase and it isn't in the Bible? It's a simple phrase and it's true (as you acknowledge), so it could be independently coined by any Christian. Or does the Catholic church get first dibs on the words and phrases we employ to talk about God?

 

As for using words and/or phrases not found in the KJV Bible, I've seen you do it all the time.

 

Certainly the Roman Catholic Church does not get first dibs on the words and phrases we employ to talk about God.  That is my point, Al.  In the thread that Ukelemike posted, I wrote out what my husband and I will be doing for the Lord in a year and a half.  Please read it.  Thank you:)  Anyway, in that post, I mentioned that we will be going to Scotland 2 times a year to help our missionary friends build another church over there.  They want me to help, b/c Scotland is filled with witchcraft. Anyway, my sister and I talk on the phone all the time.  The other day she called me and asked what was up.  I told her.  She immediately said, "Oh, they are Protestants" in a snarky manner.  It should be no secret how the RCC feels about the Protestants.  LOL  I closed my mouth, didn't argue, and changed the subject.

Yes, we all use phrases not found in the Bible.  I do it all the time.  The phase that KOB posted, immediately took me back to the RCC.  I was raised in public school in the late 60's, 70's, and 80's.  The public school system taught evolution.  The only thing I knew about God was from the RCC.  I went to CCD classes from 1-6 grade at an RCC church.  That was once a week.  In 7-8th grade I went to a charismatic RCC church for parochial school.  While I am very grateful I learned about God and Jesus, my head was spinning.  I floundered away for years, until my medical prOBlem hit in 1997.  By 1998, a Baptist man, started sharing the gospel with me.  He is a wonderful man of God.  I grew up with him, and he was a wild one.  I couldn't believe the change in him.  When he found out about my dabbling in the occult, he took me to the verses in Deuteronomy and told me I was walking on the dark side.  It hit me like a brick.  At that time, my future MIL started witnessing to me.  I thought I was saved in 1998, when I recited the "Sinner's Prayer" at my bedside that this man had me do.  That was in March of 1998.  I thought I was saved.  I married my husband in 2000, as I thought I was saved.  I was merely gaining head knowledge, in my IFB church.  I was saved, on May 10, 2003, on Mother's Day Weekend in the hospital, after an Epileptic seizure.  My head and my heart were in line.  I used to suffer from fever related seizures, as a child.  My first seizure was at 6 months old.  The last one was when I was 12.  They came back, due to stress, from teaching for 18 years in the Cleveland Municipal School District.  That year, I was able to get a medical retirement from the CMSD.  The system was getting worse, and my boss suggested I put in for a retirement.  They retired over 300 teachers that year, on medical disabilities.  

Again, just sharing my testimony...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...