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.

Dispensations


AVBibleBeliever

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 299
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 The video is a pretty straight-forward presentation of the normal Baptist position on dispensations.

 

 

No "normal Baptist position on dispensations" includes different means of salvation for different folks.

 

 

I've been a Baptist all of my life, and I've never heard any of these teachings from any church that I've attended...as a member or visitor.

 

I used to consider myself a dispensationalist, because I can see "time-divisions" in the Bible. It wasn't until a few years ago that someone made the assumption that since I was "a dispensationalist", that meant that I believed in different methods of salvation during different dispensations. Well, that was news to me! So, I delved into dispensationalism; therefore, I'm well aware that there are different facets to it. I can't say if the video's teachings are the "normal" Baptist position or not, but I can say that it's not the normal Baptist position where I'm from. It's mainly the hyper-dispensationalists who teach different methods of salvation for different dispensations, but there are disp.s who are like I was...they just see one way of salvation throughout all time, and the dispensations are basically "time periods".

 

I chose to no longer refer to myself as a dispensationalist, because I didn't want anyone to mistakenly have the false assumption that I was a hyper-dispensationalist...but that's my own conviction. I have good friends who are disp's, and they don't believe in the different methods of salvation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'm confused...my interest was peaked, so I watched the videos. However, I didn't see or hear the "Teachers to Students" A, B, or C choices that Mountain Christian pointed out. Maybe I missed it; I don't know.

 

Okay, I listened again, and I did hear him say (at the end of the second video)...that "you'd have to be blind not to see it".

 

:scratchchin: I guess I'm blind.   :nuts:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

That's what they say faith + works = salvation or grace. This occurs in almost all their dispensations except the current one we are living in. This can be seen in some posts here on OB. I'm glad they teach grace today, even if they get the history and future wrong. 

 

I still believe in dispensations but not that definition. To me over and over in the Bible from Adam until everlasting I see grace. Everywhere I look there is God's grace that all mankind isn't consumed. Everyone I see from the past and what is revealed of the future they need Jesus' blood just as much as I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I know man, right.

 

What is wrong with those people to believe the Bible on this.

 

After all Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sara, Issac, JacOB all had the OT to study about Jesus' death, burial and Resurrection or did they? No they didn't.

 

What I mean is Moses, Sampson, Rahab and the prophets all had the NT to study of Jesus or did they? No, they didn't.

 

In fact, they had only God who revealed Himself to them personally through many signs, visions, dreams and miracles and they believed God and kept believing God and it was counted to them as righteousness. Make no mistake though folks, it was only the signs, visions, wonders and miracles that kept them believing. There was no indwelling Spirit.

 

It is after all clearly presented in the OT how each of the above were regenerated by the Holy Spirit and sealed until their day of redemption. Look for yourselves, in the OT books of...books of...wait a minute, it ain't in there anywhere. The NT clearly describes that they looked "forward" in hindsight as written chronologically. Those who looked forward to God's promises at the time had no idea of the details, they just believed God when God told them He would provide redemption for all mankind.

 

This overly simplistic view of the Bible is good to keep the lazy, "don't overload me with God's Word" Christians happy and coming I guess. The last thing we want to ever do is make the average Christian think about their faith.

 

This ignorant declaration that folks in the OT were ever born again only feeds the enemies of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 The last thing we want to ever do is make the average Christian think about their faith.

 

This ignorant declaration that folks in the OT were ever born again only feeds the enemies of God.

 

 

Or...it could make those who understand that the Bible is clear (even in the Old Testament) that works have never, do never, and will never have absolutely anything whatsoever, in any shape, form, or fashion...to do with salvation...it could make those who understand this, see that the Bible is clear that righteousness comes only by grace through faith. The New Testament even tells us this in Hebrews 11. How those who propose a work's-based salvation in the OT (and the future) can miss this is beyond me. By faith...by faith...by faith!

 

The Old Testament saints weren't regenerated by the Holy Spirit as far as the biblical record shows; however, they believed what God said, and it was accounted unto them for righteousness. Today, we believe what God said (the record of his Son), and it's accounted unto us for righteousness. Those Old Testament saints who believed God were only taken to heaven after Christ's death, burial, and resurrection; therefore, their righteousness (and salvation) is directly tied to the gospel.

 

And I'm sorry to disagree with you, but the visions, signs, and wonders didn't make people believe...or keep them believing...

 

Numbers 14:11
And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?

 

Deuteronomy 1:31-32
31   And in the wilderness, where thou hast seen how that the LORD thy God bare thee, as a man doth bear his son, in all the way that ye went, until ye came into this place.
32   Yet in this thing ye did not believe the LORD your God,

 

Mr. Blue said that the main subject of the Old Testament was about a coming kingdom. No, the Old Testament is about Jesus through and through.

 

Sadly, those who hold to hyper-dispensationalism stumble at the same stumblingstone as Israel...they sadly can't see the simplicity of salvation by grace through faith in the Old Testament, because they can't systematically connect the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ to the Old Testament...so they try to make works become an element of salvation. The promised redeemer is there...throughout the Old Testament...but people stumble over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I know man, right.

 

What is wrong with those people to believe the Bible on this.

 

After all Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sara, Issac, JacOB all had the OT to study about Jesus' death, burial and Resurrection or did they? No they didn't.

 

What I mean is Moses, Sampson, Rahab and the prophets all had the NT to study of Jesus or did they? No, they didn't.

 

In fact, they had only God who revealed Himself to them personally through many signs, visions, dreams and miracles and they believed God and kept believing God and it was counted to them as righteousness. Make no mistake though folks, it was only the signs, visions, wonders and miracles that kept them believing. There was no indwelling Spirit.

 

It is after all clearly presented in the OT how each of the above were regenerated by the Holy Spirit and sealed until their day of redemption. Look for yourselves, in the OT books of...books of...wait a minute, it ain't in there anywhere. The NT clearly describes that they looked "forward" in hindsight as written chronologically. Those who looked forward to God's promises at the time had no idea of the details, they just believed God when God told them He would provide redemption for all mankind.

 

This overly simplistic view of the Bible is good to keep the lazy, "don't overload me with God's Word" Christians happy and coming I guess. The last thing we want to ever do is make the average Christian think about their faith.

 

This ignorant declaration that folks in the OT were ever born again only feeds the enemies of God.

 

Romans 4:2,3,4,5,6,7,8

2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called

Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel,
and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:  Ephesians 2:11-12

 

 

It seems that some here would infer that the Apostle Paul is a liar,

and by further implication bring discredit to Paul's Epistles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called
Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel,
and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:  Ephesians 2:11-12

 
 
It seems that some here would infer that the Apostle Paul is a liar,
and by further implication bring discredit to Paul's Epistles.

I like the text, but your comment is totally unjustified.

Paul's point is that under the old covenant, there was no Gospel for Gentiles, though a few were recorded as saved. They could be saved by becoming circumcised, which was the prOBlem the Judaizers wrestled with in Acts 15. Not that circumcision ever saved, but it was an expression of faith. Heart circumcision by faith saved. Deuteronomy 30:6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called

Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel,
and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:  Ephesians 2:11-12

 

 

It seems that some here would infer that the Apostle Paul is a liar,

and by further implication bring discredit to Paul's Epistles.

 

 

Okay. You win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

All he is winning at is making much of the Word of God of none effect. The entire Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation is about Christ. If man, at any time, could be saved by works, there would never be a need for Christ. If we are to say some me were and will be saved by their works while we of today are saved by grace, then those saved by works could boast of their own efforts and mock us for our easy salvation.

 

Why is this continued false and dangerous teaching allowed to be put forth here? This isn't a side issue or a topic that has no serious implications. This false teaching undermines the entirety of Scripture and the plan of salvation from before the foundation of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.  

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; ["alluded to", not fully revealed, Heb 10:1a "a shadow"]

Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe  [i don't see any "works" here at all, no animal sacrifices or circumcision, etc.]

Romans 3:20-22a

 

But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit,

and not in the oldness of the letter. [of the Law]  Romans 7:6

 

Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ,

according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment

of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the OBedience of faith:  Romans 16:25-26

 

That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and

strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.  Ephesians 212-13

 

Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God;

Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:  Colossians 1:25-26

 

Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles

 

Why do you suppose that those of the Synagogue in Antioch followed Paul for over 100 miles to stone him to death?  hahahahahahahahaha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Witnessed does not mean "alluded to".
It mean to tell something that you saw.
Your use of that actually says they SAW it, not that it was alluded to.

You particularly point out a definition which is WRONG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Witnessed does not mean "alluded to".
It mean to tell something that you saw.
Your use of that actually says they SAW it, not that it was alluded to.

You particularly point out a definition which is WRONG.

If the Gospel of Grace had been fully revealed in prior to Acts 9,

then there would have been no need for Paul's conversion,

and you would imply that Paul was a liar and false apostle.

 

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things,  Heb 10:1a

If I want to use the phrase "alluded to" instead of a phrase/word used by Paul, then that is my privilege.

 

Perhaps a closer study of Paul's Epistles could yield some knowledge...

 

Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If the Gospel of Grace had been fully revealed in prior to Acts 9,
then there would have been no need for Paul's conversion,
and you would imply that Paul was a liar and false apostle.

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, Heb 10:1a
If I want to use the phrase "alluded to" instead of a phrase/word used by Paul, then that is my privilege.

Perhaps a closer study of Paul's Epistles could yield some knowledge...

Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

You gave, as part of your argument, a definition that is incorrect.
It is such an unusual definition of "witnessed" that it can only be assumed that you are deliberately misrepresenting that word for the purposes of your argument.
In these two posts I address no other issue.
And by the way, I do not imply NOR state anything at all about Paul in my comments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I am admittedly not very knowledgeable on this subject as far as it even being a point of contention among believers. I do need to say that for myself I guess I have always believed that there were different dispensations. But I would not have called them that on my own, I simply believed that there were different "ages" put forth in the Bible that were I dentified by certain people, time periods or covenants, if you will. I have never had the dubious distinction of ever hearing that these dispensations had anything to do with salvation in any other manner than by Grace through faith. So the controversy put forth here is all new to me.

 

Having seen that there even existed such a controversy I dug out a book on this subject that I have had for many years. It's one of those things that was given to me long ago and never even looked through because I never really had an interest in it.

 

I wanted to mention this to see if anyone else had ever read it and what they thought of it in the light of this present controversy.

The name of the book is: The Work Of Christ Consummated In Seven Dispensations. It was written by J.R. Graves in the year 1883.

 

I have now read through it and find that it shows the work of Christ from Gen. to Rev. and I see no suggestion that there has ever been any other means of salvation other than by the substitutionary death of Christ for our, or any one's sins. It seems to simply chronical the same truths that we find in our Bibles in regard to these different time periods.

 

Once again, if anyone here has ever had opportunity to read it, what were your thoughts on its accuracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You gave, as part of your argument, a definition that is incorrect.
It is such an unusual definition of "witnessed" that it can only be assumed that you are deliberately misrepresenting that word for the purposes of your argument.
In these two posts I address no other issue.
And by the way, I do not imply NOR state anything at all about Paul in my comments.

It wasn't a definition, it was a comment.  Did you even read the entire comment, or are you just ignoring it and selectively "picking"?

Had the Gospel of Grace been clearly "witnessed" in the Old Testament then there would have been no need for the Apostle Paul.

I sense a general discrediting of the Apostle Paul.  Some elevate Peter as the one who "built the Church" and diminish Paul.

 

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.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 7 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...