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.

Way Of Life - Millennial Glory And The Final Rebellion


RSS Robot

Recommended Posts

  • Administrators

 

You would be surprised how much "leaven" from the Holy Roman Empire has crept into Protestantism.

 

 
A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Gal 5:9

 

 

I would not be surprised at all Beam. I am well aware of it. Baptists are not Protestants! Personally, I could care less what the Protestants do, believe, or say. What deeply concerns me is this for Independent Baptist people:  Jude 1:3  Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.  (underline for emphasis)

 

Col 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
 7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (underline for emphasis)

 

2Thess. 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

(underline for emphasis)

 

Tit 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.  (underline for emphasis)
 10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
 11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I would not be surprised at all Beam. I am well aware of it. Baptists are not Protestants! Personally, I could care less what the Protestants do, believe, or say. What deeply concerns me is this for Independent Baptist people

All Baptists are not the same.

Here is but one snippet from the Southern Baptist's statement of faith (for example):

The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages,

believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.  [sound similar to "all people have always been saved the same way", doesn't it?]

 

I suppose that they are unfamiliar with Paul's Epistles.

 

 
A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.  Galatians 5:9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Who cares what protestants, Catholics, or southern Baptist preach - we are not they, and you constant accusations linking us to them are simply false.
You are trying to derail the point that you are not able to answer the Scripture that has been posted that denies your twisted form of dispensationalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

 

All Baptists are not the same.

 

 

And that statement exactly speaks to the issue I bought up and added Scripture to. It is a shame and reproach to our Baptist forefathers that all Baptists are not the same. Many of our forefathers willingly gave their lives rather than deny the doctrines they had been taught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

And that statement exactly speaks to the issue I bought up and added Scripture to. It is a shame and reproach to our Baptist forefathers that all Baptists are not the same. Many of our forefathers willingly gave their lives rather than deny the doctrines they had been taught.

What formed the foundation of early Christian believers, that were 100% Gentile, were the Epistles of Paul.

I am shocked and appalled when I go on another "Baptist" forum and see what's posted there. 

Even some "Independent" believers seem to have allowed doctrines to "creep in",

and have totally ignored one particular body of doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Did the prophesied destruction take place in ad 70?
Did the Jerusalem Christians flee the city 3 1/2 years before the destruction?
Did Jesus warn the women who wept for him to weep for themselves and their children? In terms echoed in Revelation 6:15-17 ?
Revelation is declared to be signified - written in symbolic language - as is much of OT prophecy. Note Isaiah 13:9-16 prophetic of the destruction of Babylon by the Medes. A historic event recorded in Daniel 5. Jesus used the same symbolism when he prophesied the destruction. Matthew 24:29
"Literalising" prophetic Scripture loses its meaning.
The futuristic interpretation of Revelation is denied by the opening verses. Revelation 1:1-3 expects its readers to read and keep what they hear - the time is at hand. It MUST be first century, NOT 21st century.

 
I quote Scripture. Can anyone refute what I have written?

 

What a load of tripe.
Simply reading the book of Revelation proves you wrong.
You have to ignore, change, twist, reinterpret, and lie about so much of Revelation to see it your way that is amazing anyone can understand it the way you do.
To prove you wrong I just have to quote the whole book - which I won't do for want of space.

 
I am challenging you to read the Scriptures cited. Is Jesus teaching John and his readers to expect to take heed of imminent events?

 

Has anyone thought of the possibility that in some cases there may be an earlier and a later fulfillment of a prophecy? This would account for some of the confusion we see in different posters interpretation, would it not?

 
Valid question, Jim. Many commentators see the prophesied events as taking place throughout the church/gospel age. They see the Pope as antichrist. The Muslims, black death, Napoleon, Etc in Revelation. I don't fall out with them. Those people and events are real, and Christians have had, and are having to deal with them.

My prOBlem is with a dispensationalism that lifts these prophecies out of the church age into a future age where the church is absent.

BUT Jesus is coming again, he will raise the dead, judge the wicked, and bring into being the NH&NE.

 

Absolutely - but this not what Covey is saying.
He is saying it is past already and that there is no future fulfilment.
A bit like:
2 Tim 2
 17  And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
 18  Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

No need to tell people what I am saying. I write in plain English.

  

I would not be surprised at all Beam. I am well aware of it. Baptists are not Protestants! Personally, I could care less what the Protestants do, believe, or say. What deeply concerns me is this for Independent Baptist people:  Jude 1:3  Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.  (underline for emphasis)
 
Col 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
 7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (underline for emphasis)

 
2Thess. 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
(underline for emphasis)
 
Tit 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.  (underline for emphasis)
 10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
 11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.

Another excellent point, Jim. Our tradition MUST come from the Word, not 3 generations of teachers influenced by Scofield and other dispensationalists. We believe what we are taught, until we distinguish truth from error.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I won't quote the whole of Revelation, no - but there is so much in there that is quite OBviously not fulfilled in history.

Go ahead and make up your own ideas about what Scripture plainly says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

 

 

If you think that this one word “signified” means that the whole book is symbolic, then you are very badly mistaken.

Signified, simply means indicated – not symbolised.

I can indicate to you that I own a Landcruiser – and I can signify that fact also – but I do actually own a Landcruiser.

 

So there is one blow to your silly interpretation.

 

Signified does not mean symbolised – and he also says that he shows unto his servant THINGS not pictures, not symbols, but THINGS.

 

So there is another blow to your silly interpretation.

 

As well as that we see later in that same chapter:

Rev 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

 

He is to write the things which he HAS SEEN (past), the things which ARE (present for John), and things which shall be hereafter.

 

Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

 

 

There are the things which are, and they are continued in the next two chapters – actual churches spoken of and written to – there is evidence of their cities, and of their individual locations within those cities, so there is no doubt they were real cities – and the historical evidence puts them in John's time.

 

So there is no symbolism about them – they were the things that ARE at John's time, and they were real.

 

Then after the things that ARE are finished, we see:

Rev 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

 

Now, why don't we remind ourselves of the wording of the chapter 1 division of Revelation?

Rev 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

 

things which must be hereafter.

things which shall be hereafter;

 

Now is that co-incidence?

Or is it possible that God is showing the division of the book that he outlined in chapter 1:19?

 

And of course I can point to any number of events recorded in Revelation which have no fulfilment in history – and there is no way that they would not have been recorded or at least seen in archaeology.

For example:

Rev 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

Rev 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

Rev 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

 

And;

Rev 8:7 The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.

Rev 8:8 And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;

Rev 8:9 And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.

Rev 8:10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;

Rev 8:11 And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.

Rev 8:12 And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.

 

And;

 

Rev 9:3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.

Rev 9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

Rev 9:5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.

Rev 9:6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

Rev 9:7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.

Rev 9:8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.

Rev 9:9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.

Rev 9:10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.

Rev 9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

 

And we are not half way through the book yet.

 

 

But sure make it symbolic so you can simply ignore what the Bible says.

 

What else is just symbolic in the Bible? The way of salvation?

The sin of Adam and Eve?

The flood of Noah?

 

Why not take your pick since you are deciding what God means when He writes.

 

 

As for me and my house – we will believe God WROTE, not what you pretend it means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

OBviously, the hereafter events were future then, and (concerning the Man of sin) are future still today.

What is just as silly, as trying to pretend that giant locusts roamed the Earth in 70 A.D., stinging people with their scorpion tails, is trying to pretend that God removes the church before the sky rolls up as a scroll.

What is just as silly, is the stupidity of mixing prophecy of God's wrath on the followers of antichrist, with the great tribulation of the Saints.

What is more than silly, to the point of calling Jesus a liar, is trying to imply that Jesus was misleading the Disciples in Matthew 24, when He told them that His coming would be "after the tribulation".

What is silly, is claiming that Jesus was talking to the Nation of Israel, when He privately talked to the Apostles of His Church.

Dispensationalists have just as many silly notions as Preterists, Amillenialists, Covenant Theologians, Replacement Theologians, and T.U.L.I.P. Reformers.

All of these borrow from Rome.
Some via Torrey.
Some via Darby
Some via Scofield
Some via Finney
Some via Origen
Some via Augustine
Some via SBC....since so many IFB came out of the SBC in the post WWII baby boom era
And etc.

This is why every generation has to prove the Scriptures again.

All Satan has to do, to turn away the young adults in our churches, is show them one of our many traditional doctrinal errors.
Once they see that the man they've been taught to esteem too highly is a liar, they give up on Baptist, and run out into the Wilderness of Re-emergant RCC Babylonianism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You do raise some good points. Each generation does indeed need to study the Scriptures for themselves so they can know what the Scriptures say as opposed to simply accepting what they hear or read from man.

 

One prOBlem with some of these matters is trying to fit the whole matter into a particular box, and often in doing so, trying to keep anything from another views box out of their own. In so doing, there appear gaps in the views so none have a 100% clear line of reasoning. While I've seen a few attempt to correct for the gaps by examining the various views and seeing how some parts may fit together with another, most are totally unwilling to even consider such.

 

Still, we do ere in restorting to name calling and taking jabs at our brothers/sisters in Christ who hold a differing view on matters of the end-times. We all agree Christ is going to return, it's the details we don't all agree upon, which would be good ground for reasoned discussion but most only want to debate to win their view in total and destroy the other in total.

 

This is the sort of thing which does indeed turn many folks, especially it seems many younger folks, but also others, away from church and sometimes away from Christianity.

 

Following the thread of Baptist history as best we can (I'm referring to actual Baptist history) and it's clear Baptists have not always agreed on every point. There have always been Baptists of differing views on some matters. This includes those points dealing with the end times.

 

These historic differences have been around for centuries and is why there are so many varieties of Baptists today. Someone once posted a list of many of the different Baptists that exist today. Most I had heard of, but a few were new to me! In considering this we should be reminded that Independent Fundamentalist Baptists have only been around a little over a hundred years. Even among just IFBs there have always been some differences and today some of those differences have grown very pronounced. Today we see IFBs covering a broad spectrum much as does the SBC; out of which many who became IFBs once fled.

 

Thanks be to God there are still good, solid IFB churches out there with biblically sound pastors! Yet even they are not all in full agreement and some separate themselves into one of the IFB "camps" which often leads to odd stances and fights.

 

We have to be in the Word ourselves. When we share the Word, when we discuss the Word, our goal should be to bring the lost to Christ or to build-up our brothers/sisters in Christ. Scripture says we are to love one another and the world will see that and know we follow Christ. How well are we doing in this? Scripture says to be ye kind one to another? Does the world see us being kind to one another?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You do raise some good points. Each generation does indeed need to study the Scriptures for themselves so they can know what the Scriptures say as opposed to simply accepting what they hear or read from man.

One prOBlem with some of these matters is trying to fit the whole matter into a particular box, and often in doing so, trying to keep anything from another views box out of their own. In so doing, there appear gaps in the views so none have a 100% clear line of reasoning. While I've seen a few attempt to correct for the gaps by examining the various views and seeing how some parts may fit together with another, most are totally unwilling to even consider such.

Still, we do ere in restorting to name calling and taking jabs at our brothers/sisters in Christ who hold a differing view on matters of the end-times. We all agree Christ is going to return, it's the details we don't all agree upon, which would be good ground for reasoned discussion but most only want to debate to win their view in total and destroy the other in total.

This is the sort of thing which does indeed turn many folks, especially it seems many younger folks, but also others, away from church and sometimes away from Christianity.

Following the thread of Baptist history as best we can (I'm referring to actual Baptist history) and it's clear Baptists have not always agreed on every point. There have always been Baptists of differing views on some matters. This includes those points dealing with the end times.

These historic differences have been around for centuries and is why there are so many varieties of Baptists today. Someone once posted a list of many of the different Baptists that exist today. Most I had heard of, but a few were new to me! In considering this we should be reminded that Independent Fundamentalist Baptists have only been around a little over a hundred years. Even among just IFBs there have always been some differences and today some of those differences have grown very pronounced. Today we see IFBs covering a broad spectrum much as does the SBC; out of which many who became IFBs once fled.

Thanks be to God there are still good, solid IFB churches out there with biblically sound pastors! Yet even they are not all in full agreement and some separate themselves into one of the IFB "camps" which often leads to odd stances and fights.

We have to be in the Word ourselves. When we share the Word, when we discuss the Word, our goal should be to bring the lost to Christ or to build-up our brothers/sisters in Christ. Scripture says we are to love one another and the world will see that and know we follow Christ. How well are we doing in this? Scripture says to be ye kind one to another? Does the world see us being kind to one another?

That last paragraph sounds good, until you compare it to Scripture.

Jud 1:3-4
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

We are also, at times, to share the Word of God contentiously.

It flushes out snakes and wolves, who have crept in unawares.

This does not include wringing ones hands and complaining that others are allowed to speak, but rather, teaching the basic doctrines over and over.

Exortation, Rebuke, and Reproval... all necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

That last paragraph sounds good, until you compare it to Scripture.

Jud 1:3-4
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

We are also, at times, to share the Word of God contentiously.

It flushes out snakes and wolves, who have crept in unawares.

This does not include wringing ones hands and complaining that others are allowed to speak, but rather, teaching the basic doctrines over and over.

Exortation, Rebuke, and Reproval... all necessary.

I actually agree with both points.

 

I think we need to be discerning when dealing with various believers, because some can receive hard rebukes, while others need a gentler hand. Peter was tough enough to handle being called 'Satan' at his rebuke. Perhaps John, being the one who so often spoke of the love of Jesus, might not have been so able. people are different, and as such, we need to deal with them in different manners, but all in love. Of course Jesus was showing Peter love when He called him Satan, and peter was showing love to Simon when he rebuked him and told him that he was in the gall of bitterness. Simon also seemed to take it well, asking for prayer and not running away angry.

 

And certainly we are told to be kind one to another, but kindness doesn't stop us from plainly rebuking sin and error. I am one of those folks who is pretty well able to take a rebuke, because I have received so many in my life, (I was pretty rough around the edges as a youth), but some are more tender. But I believe that if our first love is the Lord, any rebuke should be received at least well enough to consider it, because we should always be checking ourselves and our hearts and motives and doctrines, because we are all flawed humans yet.

 

I may be beginning to ramble, so I'll stop now. Too early to wax theological.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The above quote from Jude 1:3-4 needs to be used graciously, yet firmly by all of us where appropriate. It is NOT to be used aggressively in a discussion between brethren.

 

I'll reply within Dave's post. To reduce the length, I will give references rather than full quotations.

 

 

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

 

If you think that this one word “signified” means that the whole book is symbolic, then you are very badly mistaken.

Signified, simply means indicated – not symbolised.

I can indicate to you that I own a Landcruiser – and I can signify that fact also – but I do actually own a Landcruiser.

 

So there is one blow to your silly interpretation.

 

There is much symbolism in Revelation. Is this literal - out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword ?   

 

Signified does not mean symbolised – and he also says that he shows unto his servant THINGS not pictures, not symbols, but THINGS.

 

So there is another blow to your silly interpretation.

 

As well as that we see later in that same chapter:

Rev 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

 

He is to write the things which he HAS SEEN (past), the things which ARE (present for John), and things which shall be hereafter.

 

Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

 

If you insist on literal reading, why do you not accept the timing of the opening verses: 

things which must shortly come to pass ... the time is at hand.  

Bear in mind that the millennium is not taught before Rev. 20, so there is no way the readers could keep those things which are written therein.

 

What  they did have was the OT prophecies regarding a glorious and eternal future Kingdom for Israel, as taught by the prophets, the Gospel of salvation & the Kingdom of Jesus Christ which many thousands of Jews had welcomed, Jesus' own prophecies of the destruction (yet to take place - see Rev. 11), & the prophecies of Jesus' return in glory for resurrection & judgement.

 

I think the Jewish Christians would have been asking the same question as the Apostles Acts 1:6-8 & not satisfied with the answer. Habakkuk wasn't satisfied the the Lord's answer to his complaint about wickness in Judah : Hab. 1:1-6        

 

There are the things which are, and they are continued in the next two chapters – actual churches spoken of and written to – there is evidence of their cities, and of their individual locations within those cities, so there is no doubt they were real cities – and the historical evidence puts them in John's time.

 

So there is no symbolism about them – they were the things that ARE at John's time, and they were real.

 

I basically agree. There is some readily understood symbolism, but the churches etc are real, & the situations, descriptions & warnings are for all to hear & act on in the real situations we face. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; 

 

Then after the things that ARE are finished, we see:

Rev 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

 

Now, why don't we remind ourselves of the wording of the chapter 1 division of Revelation?

Rev 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

 

things which must be hereafter.

things which shall be hereafter;

 

Now is that co-incidence?

Or is it possible that God is showing the division of the book that he outlined in chapter 1:19?

 

How can I disagree? They are future events. But are they things which must shortly come to pass ... the time is at hand. ? John & his readers would expect to be faced with the situations revealed, & not to dismiss them as for a future dispensation when they would not be on earth, & therefore be unable to keep those things which are written therein    

 

And of course I can point to any number of events recorded in Revelation which have no fulfilment in history – and there is no way that they would not have been recorded or at least seen in archaeology.

For example:

Rev 6:12-14  And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

Rev 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

Rev 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

 

Interesting. At Calvary there was an earthquake & the sun became black. We don't know how the moon looked. Joseph had a dream:

Gen. 37:9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said , Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made OBeisance to me. 10 And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed ? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?   

 

The relevance is clear when we consider the barren fig tree. Mat. 21:18-22 What was the mountain in question? Did they ever pray to remove this mountain? But the glorious significance of the temple mount would cease, and worship would take place around the world in spirit & truth as he taught the Samaritan woman. John 4:19-26 

 

And;

Rev. 8:7-12 The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.....

Rev 8:12 And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.

 

You're forgetting - the sun has already been darkened by the sixth seal.

 

And;

 

Rev 9:3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.

Rev 9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

Oh dear - all green grass was burnt up - at the first trumpet.

Rev 9:5-11

 

I can believe in a plague of locusts, but I suggest there is more to the vision than that - the description is OBviously not literal. Joel faces a plague of real locusts that is described graphically as an invading army.

 

And we are not half way through the book yet.

 

You've left out chapters 5 & 6 where John sees Jesus in glory as both a Lion & a slaim Lamb. 

5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold , the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. 6 And I beheld , and, lo , in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.  

 

There is an element of symbolism, surely. Note that we see the all-prevailing Lion-Lamb praised & worshipped by all the hosts of heaven [ Rev. 5:12-14 It was wonderful sing that glorious song of praise in Handel's "Messiah."] How gloriously wonderful it will be when we join the angels & saints in glory around the throne in heaven! But I digress ....

 

In Rev. 6 Jesus opens the seals. What do we expect to see? The doomed antichrist, or the all-glorious, all-conquering Lion-Lamb Jesus? The Lamb of God prevailed by his death & resurrection. Now he proceeds to triumph over his enemies - 2 And I saw , and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering , and to conquer.

 

Certain words in common use have several meanings that are understood by the context. In particular "earth."  Is the the soil, or the planet, or a specific land area. The same word in Gk  ge is variously translated. Likewise, "kindred" & "tribes" are from the same Gk word. Bearing in mind the destruction is still future at the time of the prophecy, there is no prOBlem in understanding the seals 2-4 as the war leading to the destruction: And I looked , and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. The death of about 1/4 of the population of the land of Israel during the final war is recorded history.

Ezekiel prophesied those same 4 means of death for the wicked inhabitants of Jerusalem. Eze. 14:21-23

 

Jesus prepared for the fifth seal when he prophesied:

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh . 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out ; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto . 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled .

Note the fifth seal: Rev. 6:9-11 How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?     

 

But sure make it symbolic so you can simply ignore what the Bible says.

 

What else is just symbolic in the Bible? The way of salvation?

The sin of Adam and Eve?

The flood of Noah?

 

Why not take your pick since you are deciding what God means when He writes.

 

 

As for me and my house – we will believe God WROTE, not what you pretend it means.

 

And I am challenging you to understand the Word of God by reading the Word of God.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Study the bible horizontally, rather than always deeper.  If you will simply look at a scripture you question horizontally through the bible for other references of like terms then you will not fall prey to poor interpretation as often.  Case in point, I will quote Covenanter, "There is much symbolism in Revelation. Is this literal - out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword ? "  

 

This is how you study God's word...

 

1.  Is there anything that proceeds out of the mouth that God likens to a two-edged sword, and is it used in battle against the forces of Satan?  

2.  Has Jesus ever used this before when battling Satan?

 

Hebrews 4:12 (KJV)
12  For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 

Ephesians 6:17 (KJV)
17  And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

 

Jesus battling against Satan during his temptation used the sword (word of God) to defeat him.  

 

Matthew 4:3-11 (KJV)
3  And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
4  But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
5  Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
6  And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7  Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
8  Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9  And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10  Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
11  Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him. 

 

Bro. Garry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Study the bible horizontally, rather than always deeper.  If you will simply look at a scripture you question horizontally through the bible for other references of like terms then you will not fall prey to poor interpretation as often.  Case in point, I will quote Covenanter, "There is much symbolism in Revelation. Is this literal - out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword ? "  

 

This is how you study God's word...

 

1.  Is there anything that proceeds out of the mouth that God likens to a two-edged sword, and is it used in battle against the forces of Satan?  

2.  Has Jesus ever used this before when battling Satan?

..........................

You are so quick to spiritualize or allegorize scripture that I sometimes wonder if you could "rightly divide" oil and water.  

 

Bro. Garry

Of course - do you think I would disagree, or suggest a different symbolic meaning? The symbolism of the sword of Jesus' mouth is made very clear in Scripture. Comparing Scripture with Scripture is essential for a right understanding. We should also very carefully consider the context - grammatical & historical.

 

No need for personal remarks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You are correct.  I do owe you an apology.  I am going to edit out my insensitive comment, and ask for your forgiveness.  I get a bit stirred up when I perceive something is distorting or casting doubt on God's word as with Satans original and continuing attack with Genesis 3:1 (KJV1b And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?  It was wrong of me to broad-brush contegorize you as such.

 

I have little patience with textual critics who try to say something is better translated as such-and-such, who try to allegorize large portions of the bible, or compartmentalize huge portions of the NT as not being relivant to the church.  Most often the miracles because they simply refuse to believe in a supernatural God able to suspend the laws of physics or nature at His will.  

 

Bro. Garry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Of course some of it is symbolic - but signified is no indicator of that, as I pointed out. The Symbolic parts are OBvious.

As to the timing and the word "shortly" - I said to a friend the other day that I would be at church shortly. How long do you think I meant?
I was there inside an hour. Do you suggest that these things all happened within an hour, for that is a legitimate meaning for shortly.
It is not a defined time period it is a relative one.

I left out chapters 5,6, and 7, for they are mostly concerned with events in heaven for which we would see no evidence - I was showing events for which there would be - AND WILL BE - visible evidence.

As to the rest.....

Locusts, yes, but never has a locust like these ones been seen. If this had happened, a species at least vaguely fitting this description would be know in science or historical record.

Yep, as I said, feel free to reinterpret, redefine, change, ignore the Word of God, and lie to you self about the OBvious.
I will believe what the Bible actually says thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Oh yeah - you agreed that the "things hereafter" were future then speak about the earthquake and the sun going black at the Cross?

Sorry but WRONG! That was a little bit NOT future for John when he wrote.......

A classic example of twisting things to fit your own ideas rather than reading the Word for what it says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Oh yeah - you agreed that the "things hereafter" were future then speak about the earthquake and the sun going black at the Cross?

Sorry but WRONG! That was a little bit NOT future for John when he wrote.......

A classic example of twisting things to fit your own ideas rather than reading the Word for what it says.

If you look at the references for [ sun dark* ] you will see they happen at various times of judgement.

 

Peter & his hearers in Acts 2 (quoting Joel) saw the sun darkened at Calvary. And that was final for Jesus saving work - finished! So at Pentecost the glorious light of the Gospel shone on Israel.

 

When the Medes destroyed Babylon, the prophesied darkening of the sun was not the end of the world - it was the end of the Babylon empire.

For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. (Isaiah 13)

 

I was not, of course, claiming that prophesied events were already past, but that the same prophesied heavenly signs occurred  at times of judgement, so that the sun darkening over Israel, & earthquakes would occur during the tribulation of the Jewish war in the 60s, up to AD 70.

 

Please read the Word without blinders over your eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 20 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...