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.

Original Sin/the Sin Nature


Recommended Posts

I find this to be a compelling argument for Original Sin.

 

How does that prove Original Sin? No one is denying that all men sin. 

 

That verse has nothing to do with Original Sin whatsoever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

You are not responding to what he's saying, you are just basically saying "You are wrong and I am right" , without even defending your position, you are not being honest about debunking his position.

 

As I told you before, lots of people tell me I am wrong, but they can never say WHY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You are not responding to what he's saying, you are just basically saying "You are wrong and I am right" , without even defending your position, you are not being honest about debunking his position.

No, I am pointing out that he is moving from Biblical fact to speculation when he bases a doctrine on words like "prOBably".

He is trying to argue that David being conceived in sin is because "he prOBably was from Jesse's second wife."

If he showed biblical proof of it then fine, but he did not.

I showed in two simple verses a basic run down - he responded with speculative argument.

I am not going to argue against speculation with more speculation.

By the way he responded to me by saying that what I posted was false and unsupported by Scripture.

Who exactly is accusing without Addressing the post?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I am pointing out that he is moving from Biblical fact to speculation when he bases a doctrine on words like "prOBably".

He is trying to argue that David being conceived in sin is because "he prOBably was from Jesse's second wife."

If he showed biblical proof of it then fine, but he did not.

I showed in two simple verses a basic run down - he responded with speculative argument.

I am not going to argue against speculation with more speculation.

 

All I know is that David's mother had two daughters with Nahash the Ammonite. I showed the scripture that tells us this. 

 

Psalm 51:5 says David was "conceived in iniquity". It is the mother that conceives, men do not conceive. This verse is describing David's mother and says she was sinning when David was conceived, but it does not give us the exact details. There are all sorts of possibilities, perhaps she got pregnant BEFORE she married Jesse. 

 

Happens every day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The actual issue is that David must still have had a father and a mother does not conceive alone.
The father's seed must be present - your speculation of another mother is irrelevant in the argument.
David, like all men, was conceived in sin - this is the natural reading of the passage.
And it fits with the verses I posted previously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

All I know is that David's mother had two daughters with Nahash the Ammonite. I showed the scripture that tells us this. 

 

Psalm 51:5 says David was "conceived in iniquity". It is the mother that conceives, men do not conceive. This verse is describing David's mother and says she was sinning when David was conceived, but it does not give us the exact details. There are all sorts of possibilities, perhaps she got pregnant BEFORE she married Jesse. 

 

Happens every day.

She could not conceive without a man. Unless God intervenes like he did with Mary the betrothed of Joseph.  I don't see David saying his mother was in sin when she conceived him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The actual issue is that David must still have had a father and a mother does not conceive alone.
The father's seed must be present - your speculation of another mother is irrelevant in the argument.
David, like all men, was conceived in sin - this is the natural reading of the passage.
And it fits with the verses I posted previously.

 

You are reading into scripture. I have already proven this view of yours error, the scriptures clearly tell us Jesus was MADE of the SEED of DAVID according to the FLESH. Jesus inherited David's DNA from Mary, so if sin is passed from the father, Jesus would still have inherited sin from David. 

 

No where does the Bible teach that sin is inherited from our father. That is nothing but pure superstition. 

 

And Psalm 51:5 is describing David;s mother, not David. She was doing something wrong when he was conceived, but we are not told what. 

 

We do know David did not look anything like his brothers, so perhaps his biological father was not Jesse. Happens all the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She could not conceive without a man. Unless God intervenes like he did with Mary the betrothed of Joseph.  I don't see David saying his mother was in sin when she conceived him.

 

No kidding. That does not prove your view, scripture tells us Jesus was made of the fruit of David's loins, so if sin is inherited from our father, then Jesus would have inherited a sin nature from David. 

 

Give it up, the scriptures clearly refute this superstitious view. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Jesus had no physical father.
If the sin is passed by the father then Jesus did not inherit that - Mary did of course because she had an earthly father.

Please explain why the Bible makes the point that Jesus was "made of a woman" if it is not to point that out.

You have certainly not shown my use of two verses to be in error.
However your points of "only a woman can conceive" for instance is plainly incorrect, and then somehow extrapolating from that and the supposed parenthood of David something is plainly incorrect.

Find some other way of arguing your point, for that line is quite frankly ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus had no physical father.
If the sin is passed by the father then Jesus did not inherit that - Mary did of course because she had an earthly father.

Please explain why the Bible makes the point that Jesus was "made of a woman" if it is not to point that out.

You have certainly not shown my use of two verses to be in error.
However your points of "only a woman can conceive" for instance is plainly incorrect, and then somehow extrapolating from that and the supposed parenthood of David something is plainly incorrect.

Find some other way of arguing your point, for that line is quite frankly ridiculous.

 

I will say what the scriptures say, that Jesus was made of the "seed" of David according to the flesh. He was made of the "fruit" of David's loins. 

 

Scripture is absolutely clear, you just don' t want to hear it. But the Jews knew the Christ had to be a physical descendant of David, and so they called him "son of David" . This phrase is used 17 times in the gospels. 

 

 
Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
 
Acts 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
 
Mat 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
 
Mat 9:27 And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us.
 
Some folks do not want to know the truth. 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

There is no argument that Jesus was from the line of David - it is plainly so.

But He was so through his mother, as He had no physical father.

This is why your whole argument is irrelevant - there was no direct physical father of Jesus for the sin nature to be passed through - which is PRECISELY why the Bible says Jesus was "made of a woman".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no argument that Jesus was from the line of David - it is plainly so.

But He was so through his mother, as He had no physical father.

This is why your whole argument is irrelevant - there was no direct physical father of Jesus for the sin nature to be passed through - which is PRECISELY why the Bible says Jesus was "made of a woman".

 

That makes no difference, scriptures says he was MADE of the SEED of David according to the FLESH. If we inherit sin from our father, then Jesus would have inherited a sin nature from David's SEED.

 

Hundreds of years ago men did not understand this, but today we know we inherit DNA from our grandfathers on both sides. In fact, it was once believed that baldness was inherited from your mother's father, but they are not absolutely certain about that now, although there is real evidence this might be true. 

 

God cannot be tempted, Jesus could be tempted. Where did he get this ability? From his mother Mary. 

 

It is the ability to be tempted that people mistake for a sin nature. We are born flesh with lusts and desires that tempt us. Jesus was made flesh and was tempted in ALL POINTS as we are, he SUFFERED being tempted just like we do. 

 

There is not one word of scripture that teaches we inherit a sin nature from our father. You cannot possibly show it. 

 

I need to go to bed, but I will come back tomorrow evening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Galatians 5:16-24 16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

 

Jesus flesh did not sin because he was God. God can't sin. He flesh was tempted to sin but the Godly power was greater. If a human is born with flesh you are born in sin. Even Jesus' flesh warred against him but he won that war. One of things I want to ask Jesus is, would his flesh have died if he wasn't murdered?

 

In the garden you can see the flesh warring against the Woman. Adam rebelled because his flesh loved the Woman more than his heart loved God. We see they had flesh for what seems like a short time until they sinned, it reads like only a few days may have passed. Both Adam and the woman had the power within them to not sin, they gave up that power for all mankind. 

 

Now look at a child as soon as they can talk they lie. Start shaking that little head no, they didn't do that. Before God holds them accountable they are sinning. That nature of giving into the flesh from an early age is original sin.

 

FYI, I loved the use of John 1:8. By trying to say a child can be born and not sin we are deceiving ourselves. Only a God could do that and Jesus did. That makes me want to shout the victory at midnight!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

When God Became Man by Dr. Henry M. Morris

 

How Could the Creator Become Man?

 

Since "by Him [that is by Christ, the Word of God] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth" (Colossians 1:16), He must have created the very body in which He would dwell when He "was made flesh." This body, however, could not be a body produced by the normal process of human reproduction, for it must be a body unmarred either by inherent sin spiritually or by inherited genetic defects physically or mentally.

 

It would necessarily have to be a perfect body, a body like that of the first man He had created long ago in the beautiful garden of Eden. He would, in fact, come to be called "the last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45), since there would never be another man created as that "first Adam" had been.

 

There would be one important difference, however. The first Adam was created and made as a full-grown man, but the second must be "in all things . . . made like unto His brethren" (Hebrews 2:17). From conception to death, He must be "in all points . . . like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). In particular, His blood must be "precious blood . . . as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Peter 1:19), for that blood must be "offered . . . without spot to God" (Hebrews 9:14).

 

Thus the body of the second Adam must be formed directly by God and placed in a virgin's womb. This had been the very first promise made after the first Adam brought sin and death into the world. Speaking of "the woman, and . . . her seed," God said that He "shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel" (Genesis 3:15). This prophecy was addressed to Satan, whose lie had elicited Eve's sin. This wonderful body would not grow from a man's seed, as in every other human birth, nor would it grow from a woman's egg, for in either case a sin-carrying and mutation-carrying embryo would necessarily result. It must instead be a seed specially formed by the Creator Himself, then planted in the virgin's womb, where it forthwith would become His "tabernacle" for thirty-three years as He lived on His planet Earth among those He had come to save.

 

"Lo, I come," He would later promise through David (Psalms 40:7). Through Isaiah He said: "(The) virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son," and that babe would also be "the mighty God, the everlasting Father" (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6). Still later, another great prophet could anticipate that "The LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, a woman shall compass a man" (Jeremiah 31:22).

 

Note that the "new thing" in the chosen woman must be "created." When the time came the angel assured young Mary that "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35).

 

Then, "when He cometh into the world, He saith, . . . a body hast thou prepared me" (Hebrews 10:5). Most significantly, He used the same word "prepared" (Greek, katartizo), which the writer of Hebrews also then would use when he testified that "the worlds were framed by the Word of God" (Hebrews 11:3), recognizing that the same living Word who had framed the worlds had also framed His own human body! And in that tiny cell in Mary's womb resided all the information not only for His own growth into manhood, but also for the creation, preservation, and redemption of the whole creation. It was His by right of creation and soon would be doubly His by right of redemption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When God Became Man by Dr. Henry M. Morris

 

How Could the Creator Become Man?

 

Since "by Him [that is by Christ, the Word of God] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth" (Colossians 1:16), He must have created the very body in which He would dwell when He "was made flesh." This body, however, could not be a body produced by the normal process of human reproduction, for it must be a body unmarred either by inherent sin spiritually or by inherited genetic defects physically or mentally.

 

It would necessarily have to be a perfect body, a body like that of the first man He had created long ago in the beautiful garden of Eden. He would, in fact, come to be called "the last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45), since there would never be another man created as that "first Adam" had been.

 

There would be one important difference, however. The first Adam was created and made as a full-grown man, but the second must be "in all things . . . made like unto His brethren" (Hebrews 2:17). From conception to death, He must be "in all points . . . like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). In particular, His blood must be "precious blood . . . as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Peter 1:19), for that blood must be "offered . . . without spot to God" (Hebrews 9:14).

 

Thus the body of the second Adam must be formed directly by God and placed in a virgin's womb. This had been the very first promise made after the first Adam brought sin and death into the world. Speaking of "the woman, and . . . her seed," God said that He "shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel" (Genesis 3:15). This prophecy was addressed to Satan, whose lie had elicited Eve's sin. This wonderful body would not grow from a man's seed, as in every other human birth, nor would it grow from a woman's egg, for in either case a sin-carrying and mutation-carrying embryo would necessarily result. It must instead be a seed specially formed by the Creator Himself, then planted in the virgin's womb, where it forthwith would become His "tabernacle" for thirty-three years as He lived on His planet Earth among those He had come to save.

 

"Lo, I come," He would later promise through David (Psalms 40:7). Through Isaiah He said: "(The) virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son," and that babe would also be "the mighty God, the everlasting Father" (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6). Still later, another great prophet could anticipate that "The LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, a woman shall compass a man" (Jeremiah 31:22).

 

Note that the "new thing" in the chosen woman must be "created." When the time came the angel assured young Mary that "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35).

 

Then, "when He cometh into the world, He saith, . . . a body hast thou prepared me" (Hebrews 10:5). Most significantly, He used the same word "prepared" (Greek, katartizo), which the writer of Hebrews also then would use when he testified that "the worlds were framed by the Word of God" (Hebrews 11:3), recognizing that the same living Word who had framed the worlds had also framed His own human body! And in that tiny cell in Mary's womb resided all the information not only for His own growth into manhood, but also for the creation, preservation, and redemption of the whole creation. It was His by right of creation and soon would be doubly His by right of redemption.

 

Nice philosophy, it's too bad the scriptures say Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a nephew who was adept at lying months before he could talk. He lspoke lies through his actions.

 

I never said that little children do not do wrong. I have eight children, I assure you I know children have the ability to do wrong, prOBably better than you. But God does not hold them accountable until they understand their actions before God. 

 

Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

 

When the Jews sinned against God in the wilderness, God said they would in no way enter the promised land, which is a figure of heaven. But God did allow their children to enter in. Why? Because they had no knowledge between good and evil in that day that their parents sinned. 

 

Why did Adam and Eve die spiritually die when they ate the forbidden fruit? Because now they had KNOWLEDGE between good and evil and were convicted as sinners. 

 

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
 
Here Paul tells us of the time he learned the law as all young Jewish boys and girls do. He said he would have not "known" sin, except for the law, he would not have "known" lust, except the law said, Thou shalt not covet. 
 
In verse 9 he tells us he was ALIVE without the law ONCE. This utterly destroys Original Sin that teaches we are born dead in sin. Paul says he was spiritually alive, but when he learned the law, sin revived and he died. 
 
Paul thought the law led to life, if he OBeyed the law he would inherit eternal life, but sin used the law against him and convicted him as a sinner and he spiritually died. He could not possibly be speaking of physical life and death in this passage. 
 
But again, it was KNOWLEDGE that made Paul accountable, and this is why he died. 
 
Children do wrong things all the time, but they do not understand their actions, and so are not judged as sinners. To be a "sinner" is a legal judgment, like being a "felon".
 
Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
 
One of the main reasons folks get the book of Romans all wrong is that they do not realize that Paul is speaking as a lawyer in this book, he is speaking in legal terms. The word "sinner" is a legal term. We call everyone a sinner, but this was not the case with the Jews, this term was reserved for more serious transgressions willingly and knowingly committed. 
 
Luk 7:37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.
 
The Jews did not use the term "sinner" the way we do, it was a legal judgment, like being a felon. And this is how Paul uses the term in the book of Romans. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It's  not about DNA, it is about sin.

 

And it is not about his descendence from David - no one disputes that Biblical fact. But that has absolutely no relevance to the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, which is plainly stated in the Bible that Jesus was "made of a woman", thereby NOT PASSING THE SIN NATURE to Him, which is passed by the authority line of the father.

 

I have plainly explained to you where your argument is faulty and you ignore the simple and argue the absurd.

 

It is my view that you are doing this deliberately.

For what purpose I do not know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)

It is important to remember that the human nature did not take on the Divine nature. Rather, it was the Divine nature that assumed a human nature. He did not divest Himself of His Divine nature and the deity was never separated from the humanity.

"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead (Divine) bodily (flesh)." (Col. 2:9)

It was not the seed of David who was made the Son of God, rather, it was the eternal Son of God who was made the seed of David according to the flesh.

"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).

The only reason the Son ever took on Himself flesh and blood was because men were partakers of flesh and blood.

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." (Hebrews 2:14)

In order for Him to be our kinsman-Redeemer, He took on Himself the fulness of human nature "flesh and blood". Once this human nature was assumed in the womb of the virgin, it was never separated from the Divine nature of the Eternal Word and therefore, assured that the man Christ Jesus would not and COULD NOT sin!

"God cannot be tempted with evil" (James 1:13)
"it is impossible for God to lie" (Hebrews 6:18)
Christ was "God manifest in flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16)
"Immanuel" - God with us (Matt. 1:23)
He "did no sin" (1 Peter 2:22)
"In Him is no sin" (1 John 3:5 and contrast 1:8)
He "knew no sin" (2 Corinthians 5:21)
He was "without sin" (Hebrews 4:15)
He was "the Almighty" (Rev. 1:8)

Being Master and Lord of all things - as His dominion over the winds and waves, diseases and death, clearly demonstrated - it was impossible that anything should master Him! - The Impeccability of Christ by David L. Brown, Ph.D.

**************************************************

The Apostle Paul knew he had a sin nature...

Romans 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Romans 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Romans 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Romans 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Romans 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Romans 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Romans 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Well, most importantly you are blaming God for sin. 

 

The scriptures nowhere teach that God cursed us to be sinners. Ask folks to show you from scripture, they can't do it. 

 

 

If I believe that man is born with a sin-nature, that means I blame God for sin? 

 

No, I blame Adam...always have and always will. You're right about one thing though, the scriptures don't teach anywhere that God cursed us to be sinners...but Adam did.

 

Romans 5:19
For as by one man's disOBedience many were made sinners, so by the OBedience of one shall many be made righteous.

 

 

So in a sense, physical death is good and a blessing toward man. 

 

 

No...death is never presented in scripture as being "good and a blessing toward man".  I understand what you're implying with the statement you made, but the Bible is clear...

 

1 Corinthians 15:26
The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...