Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Why King James Only?


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Jordan,

Where was God's perfectly preserved text prior to 1611?

Everywhere. 

The Russians had their own Bible from the correct text in the 1500's, as did most of the European languages.  That is why the Title Page on the KJV says "with the former translations diligently compared."  The KJV translators checked their work with other current vernacular translations, the Hebrew and Greek texts (rejecting what is now know as the CT), and other ancient translations.  There work was thorough in every sense of the word, unlike the modern slop that is coming out.  The Bibles in European languages at that time were the correct Bibles. 

 

Today, the CT has ruined the translation process.  Most languages has traded in their TR translation in for the CT translation to the extent that it is difficult to find a good translation in many parts of the world simply because nOBody prints the correct version anymore.  But still, the important thing for those people in that situation is their ATTITUDE toward the word of God.   The attitude of the "scholars" is that they think they know more than God, and it is their duty to tell everyone where the Bible is "wrong."  The attitude of the believer is to believe WHAT HE HAS IN HIS HANDS, and trust that the Lord will bless it.  And God will bless them on an individual basis for their faith, even if their Bible is wrong in some places.  Their growth will be stunted to some degree or another, but God is still able to overcome that.  A good missionary will seek to put the right Bible in their hands if at all possible, even if it means producing a new translation from the correct text. 

 

Why English?  It is the universal language of the day.  We send people all over the world to teach English.  It is the dominant language used universally.  In the OT times, if you wanted a copy of the TRUE Scriptures, it was in Hebrew.  Today, it is in English. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Jordan,

Where was God's perfectly preserved text prior to 1611?

Everywhere. 

The Russians had their own Bible from the correct text in the 1500's, as did most of the European languages.  That is why the Title Page on the KJV says "with the former translations diligently compared."  The KJV translators checked their work with other current vernacular translations, the Hebrew and Greek texts (rejecting what is now know as the CT), and other ancient translations.  There work was thorough in every sense of the word, unlike the modern slop that is coming out.  The Bibles in European languages at that time were the correct Bibles. 

 

Today, the CT has ruined the translation process.  Most languages has traded in their TR translation in for the CT translation to the extent that it is difficult to find a good translation in many parts of the world simply because nOBody prints the correct version anymore.  But still, the important thing for those people in that situation is their ATTITUDE toward the word of God.   The attitude of the "scholars" is that they think they know more than God, and it is their duty to tell everyone where the Bible is "wrong."  The attitude of the believer is to believe WHAT HE HAS IN HIS HANDS, and trust that the Lord will bless it.  And God will bless them on an individual basis for their faith, even if their Bible is wrong in some places.  Their growth will be stunted to some degree or another, but God is still able to overcome that.  A good missionary will seek to put the right Bible in their hands if at all possible, even if it means producing a new translation from the correct text. 

 

Why English?  It is the universal language of the day.  We send people all over the world to teach English.  It is the dominant language used universally.  In the OT times, if you wanted a copy of the TRUE Scriptures, it was in Hebrew.  Today, it is in English. 

So you are saying that if one wants God's word today, he must learn English? Otherwise, its not God's word? The hundred, nay, thousands of translations into other languages over the years from the TR, into oriental languages, European languages, even native American languages, are all worthless, because they aren't English?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

YAY! 2000 likes!

 

Sorry, back to topic.

 

By the way, not looking for a fight with anyone, and I apologize for what might seem like my pulling an attitude about Peter Ruckman. I admit to not reading a whole lot of his stuff-I have taken the word of some that I trust, but that being said, I should perhaps look a bit more into his actual works.

 

I am not, however, a liar-I did not lie about what I said, and I don't yet know for certain that I am in error about it. But I will look into it. Just hard to find time to read everything that is out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

YAY! 2000 likes!

 

Sorry, back to topic.

 

By the way, not looking for a fight with anyone, and I apologize for what might seem like my pulling an attitude about Peter Ruckman. I admit to not reading a whole lot of his stuff-I have taken the word of some that I trust, but that being said, I should perhaps look a bit more into his actual works.

 

I am not, however, a liar-I did not lie about what I said, and I don't yet know for certain that I am in error about it. But I will look into it. Just hard to find time to read everything that is out there.

 

Like! 

:coverlaugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

YAY! 2000 likes!

 

Sorry, back to topic.

 

By the way, not looking for a fight with anyone, and I apologize for what might seem like my pulling an attitude about Peter Ruckman. I admit to not reading a whole lot of his stuff-I have taken the word of some that I trust, but that being said, I should perhaps look a bit more into his actual works.

 

I am not, however, a liar-I did not lie about what I said, and I don't yet know for certain that I am in error about it. But I will look into it. Just hard to find time to read everything that is out there.

Mike, I don't think you are malicious in your intentions.  But these quotes get passed around all the time.  I am telling you as someone who was in his church for 4 years, and sat in his classes for 3 years, and played floor hockey with him during that time, and has read most of his books, and listened to countless hours of his teaching and preaching that those quotes are taken out of context.  

 

They are sarcastic jabs at people who worship Greek and Hebrew.  They are jabs at those who teach preacher boys that the only way they can understand the depths of the Bible is by learning Greek and Hebrew.  These jabs are usually thrown after he shows some tremendous truths that all of the great "scholars" MISSED while they were floundering around in Greek and Hebrew.  His point is simple - if you have a KJV, you have everything you need.  

If you read those quotes in their proper setting, anyone could see it.  Therefore, those who have purposefully LIFTED those quotes out of their proper context did so knowing full well that this was a great distortion and misrepresentation of what Dr. Ruckman believes.  

OF COURSE he believes the original manuscripts were infallible when they were written.  The point is simple - THOSE ORIGINALS DON'T EXIST ANYMORE, so why waste time going back to something we don't have?  We have God's perfect word for us today in the KJV - let's just stick with that, and stop wasting time elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I just re-read he OB doctrinal position -- so, which part of it is not accepted by a mod? Which mod?

 

My son-in law graduated from PBI prior to '97 and doesn't have a newer copy of any textbooks. So, are you saying that no one can quote what another person wrote without managing to  ascertain as to whether a newer edition is out?

 

It looks as if the works he re-quoted were PBI press -- so how is that talebearing? (remember that it is in print available for public purchase)

 

 

In short -- Have a beef with him? Fine -- have at it BUT it definitely looks like you are out of line unless what is on screen and what you sought to convey didn't quite mesh.

 

 

Old - You cant ascertain the context either, at least not on this post, I don´t know what youre bellyaching about.

 

Calvinism is a rotten heresy and it's promoted here all the time.

 

OB doctrinal statement includes a pre trib pre millenial position, MIke does not hold to it, though he is certainly free to choose his eschatology, this board has a stated position, so....

 

Talebearing is repeating a lie told by someone else, it's also called gossip. Mike did not find those quotes himslef but relied upon a secondary source and fell into the trap of publickly stating a matter to be thus when it was not so, as any reading of the context of those quotes would have shown, IF HE HAD ACTUALLY READ THE MATERIAL instead of merely quoting a slanderer.

 

I also know that Mike is not malicious about it, but I was simply making a point.

 

God bless you Mike,

 

calvary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The originals didn't exist when the translators did the KJV either.

It is a silly argument.

I disagree.  For decades young preachers have gone off to Bible College or Seminary with their faith in the Bible they had grown up reading, studying, memorizing and preaching, only to have some stuffed shirt idiot tell them that their Bibles had mistakes in it, and that they had to learn Greek and Hebrew to know what the "originals" said, and that they would never understand the depths of Bible Doctrine without a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.  These same over-educated idiots miss OBVIOUS TRUTHS staring at them out of the pages of the KJV.   In the mean time, those students leave these schools with their faith in the Bible and the Holy Spirit destroyed, and they are now dependent on their EDUCATION instead of the HOLY SPIRIT.  

A.T. ROBertson was one of the outstanding NT Greek Scholars of the early 1900's.  He wrote the definitive NT Greek Grammar - over 1500 pages - about the size of a dictionary.  For all of his knowledge of the NT Greek language, he was a dunce when it came to Bible Doctrine.  So while these "scholars" tell these young preachers that a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to have a proper knowledge of the Bible and Bible doctrine, the TRUTH is that having that knowledge is absolutely no guarantee that you will arrive at the truth.  

So, Dr. Ruckman's sarcastic jabs only EXPOSE THEIR LIES.  And he would know - he was still writing Greek and Hebrew verses from memory on the dry erase boards in class when I was in school - he was in his 70's then.  He knows as much about Greek and Hebrew as any "scholar" in the country....that is why they think he is so dangerous.  He can shred their arguments at the drop of a hat with the same knowledge and material they use.  

 

Conclusion? If all you had was a KJV, you would are better off than if you had any edition of any Greek NT available today.  The KJV has everything the Christian needs, and anyone who can read English can get the same information without having to go to Dr. Smellfungus to tell where it is all wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The translators still didn't have the originals - that is why it is a silly argument.

 

We still do have access to the stuff they had that they translated from.

 

Silly argument......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Old - You cant ascertain the context either, at least not on this post, I don´t know what youre bellyaching about.

 

Calvinism is a rotten heresy and it's promoted here all the time.

 

OB doctrinal statement includes a pre trib pre millenial position, MIke does not hold to it, though he is certainly free to choose his eschatology, this board has a stated position, so....

 

Talebearing is repeating a lie told by someone else, it's also called gossip. Mike did not find those quotes himslef but relied upon a secondary source and fell into the trap of publickly stating a matter to be thus when it was not so, as any reading of the context of those quotes would have shown, IF HE HAD ACTUALLY READ THE MATERIAL instead of merely quoting a slanderer.

 

I also know that Mike is not malicious about it, but I was simply making a point.

 

God bless you Mike,

 

calvary

 

First of all, when a mod says you're out of line, the appropriate response is to pay attention, not demean his comments ('bellyaching').
 

Secondly, I just read through the board rules and doctrinal statement, and I can't see where eschatology is listed in either place. Please copy and paste the URL so we can see what you are referring to. Frankly, it's really not up to you to 'police' the mods - that's BroMatt's jOB. If he has a prOBlem with any of us, he'll take care of it.

I'm not sure what Calvinism has to do with the OP, so let's not muddy the waters with old complaints, eh?

 

The topic is KJV, not Peter Ruckman. Let's see if we can get back to the OP, shall we? :wink

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Old - You cant ascertain the context either, at least not on this post, I don´t know what youre bellyaching about.

 

Calvinism is a rotten heresy and it's promoted here all the time.

 

OB doctrinal statement includes a pre trib pre millenial position, MIke does not hold to it, though he is certainly free to choose his eschatology, this board has a stated position, so....

 

Talebearing is repeating a lie told by someone else, it's also called gossip. Mike did not find those quotes himslef but relied upon a secondary source and fell into the trap of publickly stating a matter to be thus when it was not so, as any reading of the context of those quotes would have shown, IF HE HAD ACTUALLY READ THE MATERIAL instead of merely quoting a slanderer.

 

I also know that Mike is not malicious about it, but I was simply making a point.

 

God bless you Mike,

 

calvary

I figured you were referring to Mike's eschatology, however:  here is the OB doctrine page in it's entirety

 

Doctrinal Statement for Online Baptist

Doctrine of God:

We believe in only one holy, righteous, just, perfect, merciful, gracious, long suffering, omnipotent, omniscient, God who is abundant in mercy and truth and composed of a Godhead of three distinct eternal persons. The Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We believe each of these persons is fully equal and fully God and yet fulfill different roles. We believe the Father is the supreme ruler of all things. We believe all things of the Father are Jesus Christ the Sons and that the Father has committed all judgement into his hands. We believe that the work of the Son is to glorify the Father and the Father glorifies the Son. We believe the work of the Holy Spirit is to guide believers into all truth and reveal the truth contained in the scriptures to their hearts. His work also includes convicting the world of sin, righteousness, and judgement. We believe that while God can always do as he wishes certain "sign gifts" of the Holy Spirit(tongues, miracles, the gift of healing etc.) are not active at this point in time and those who teach otherwise have repeatedly been tried and found liars.

Concerning the Scriptures:

We believe that every word of the scriptures was given by inspiration of God and that every word of of the scriptures has been preserved by his divine power from the tainting of man thus retaining their inspired character in its entirety.
We therefore hold the scriptures to be the foremost authority for faith and practice and reject every doctrine or teaching contrary to the teachings of the 66 books of scripture as not of God and false. We believe that the revelation of scripture was completed with the book of Revelation. Online baptist holds that the King James Bible is Gods preserved word for the English speaking peoples and does not permit using other versions on the forum. We reject the teaching of the double inspiration of the KJV and hold that the KJV retains the original divine inspiration of the scriptures through faithful translation and Gods divine preservation rather than being re-inspired in the English language in 1611.

Doctrine of Salvation:

We believe all men are born sinners and deserving of hell. We believe God sent his only begotten Son Jesus Christ into the world to make a substitutionary sacrifice by his death that was sufficient to atone for the sin of the whole world. We believe man was dead in sin and unable to come to God yet the true light, Jesus Christ , "lighteth every man that cometh into the world" and through that universal grace of light every man is freely afforded the opportunity to repent and come to the light. We reject the doctrine that God has chosen some to go to heaven and has not chosen others. Rather we believe that God, who is rich in mercy, has chosen all mankind for salvation but unfortunately some will go to hell because they, by hardness of heart and self will, chose to frustrate the grace of God by rejecting his free gift and trampling under foot the precious blood of Christ. We believe in order to truly pass from death to life a person must repent of their sins and call upon God to receive salvation and remission of sins by grace through faith in Gods promise and Christ's blood. We believe good works do not and can never have any part in salvation, truly all our righteousness is as filthy rags, however if a person is truly saved good works will follow because their heart has been changed by the operation of God.

Christian living:

We believe God has called believers to be holy because he is holy. We believe God progressively conforms believers into the image of Christ as they submit to his revealed will. Stubborn resistance and failure to submit to Gods revealed will prevents spiritual growth indefinitely and may bring Gods chastening. Christians have a responsibility to warn, comfort, rebuke, and edify one another in a spirit of meekness and kindness with the good of each other at heart. God is not pleased when Christians forget this and debate in foolish anger or for strife, pride, or vainglory. Christians also have a duty not to take offense easily. "1st Peter 2:19-23 "For this is thank worthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently,this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example,that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:"

 

 

 

 

Sorry for the long post --but, I don't see eschatology in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

First of all, when a mod says you're out of line, the appropriate response is to pay attention, not demean his comments ('bellyaching').
 

Secondly, I just read through the board rules and doctrinal statement, and I can't see where eschatology is listed in either place. Please copy and paste the URL so we can see what you are referring to. Frankly, it's really not up to you to 'police' the mods - that's BroMatt's jOB. If he has a prOBlem with any of us, he'll take care of it.

I'm not sure what Calvinism has to do with the OP, so let's not muddy the waters with old complaints, eh?

 

The topic is KJV, not Peter Ruckman. Let's see if we can get back to the OP, shall we? :wink

 

Ooops, I was typing when you posted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The only reason I posted anything on Dr. Ruckman was because Mike was propogating a lie about him, a distorted view of what the man really believes.  As someone who has personal knowledge of the man and what he believes, I felt compelled to challenge those false statements.

 

Thank you,

 

Goodbye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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

 

Notice:

Calvary and I will be representing the Pre-Tribulation Rapture position, which is also the official position of the Online Baptist Forum. There are a number of things that we agree with Pastor Totten on. We agree that there are good men who hold to both positions and that it is not necessary to separate over this issue. We also agree that the chief task given to us is to evangelize the lost world. Calvary, Pastor Totten, and I have agreed to keep this debate in a civilized manner. We have also agreed that when we get to a position where we must agree to disagree, the debate will be over. We agree that this is not about winning or losing, but about showing a clear presentation of when the rapture will occur.

 

Thank you,

Goodbye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

“If you are able to OBtain a copy [of Ruckman’s proposed new book] you will have, in your hands, a minimum of 200 advanced revelations that came from the inerrant English text, that were completely overlooked (or ignored) by every major Christian scholar since 90 A.D.” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, Jan. 1994, pp. 2, 4).

 

The King James test is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the universal language of the 20th century ... The truth is that GOD SLAMMED THE DOOR OF REVELATION SHUT IN 389 BC AND SLAMMED IT SHUT AGAIN IN 1611(Peter Ruckman, The Monarch of Books, Pensacola, 1973, p. 9). [brother Cloud: In fact, God slammed the door of revelation shut in about 90 A.D. with the completion of the New Testament.]

 

http://www.wayoflife.org/database/ruckman.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

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

 

Notice:

Calvary and I will be representing the Pre-Tribulation Rapture position, which is also the official position of the Online Baptist Forum. There are a number of things that we agree with Pastor Totten on. We agree that there are good men who hold to both positions and that it is not necessary to separate over this issue. We also agree that the chief task given to us is to evangelize the lost world. Calvary, Pastor Totten, and I have agreed to keep this debate in a civilized manner. We have also agreed that when we get to a position where we must agree to disagree, the debate will be over. We agree that this is not about winning or losing, but about showing a clear presentation of when the rapture will occur.

 

Thank you,

Goodbye.

As has been shown by two mods, there is nowhere that states OB's office position on the rapture. BroMatt would be the one to do that, not one of the mods (which PastorJ was at the time he made this statement you quoted). That said, the majority of us are indeed pre-Trib, unashamedly so.  And we would agree with the last statement you quoted as well.  Too bad too many folk who try to force folks to just post certain things don't in actuality agree with it.

 

Now....a mod has already said get back on topic.  This is the second one to do so.  The topic is not Calvinism, nor is it the Rapture, nor even Ruckman (although Jordan began the thread and so it can go in that direction if he so desires). Back to topic.

 

~~~~~~

 

The KJV is the preserved Word of God for English speaking people. The TR may be used for translation into other languages, as may the KJV (although there are words in the KJV that are at times difficult to translate into other languages because they are transliterations from the Greek). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Jordan,

You seem to be confusing the issue and missing the point.

The point I am making (and the source of the quotes from Dr. Ruckman) is not an anti-intellectual position, per se.  The point is that the "scholars" tell us that we simply cannot understand the depths of Scripture without a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.   This is summarily false.  Many Greek and Hebrew "experts" hold to false doctrine.  Most miss important doctrinal points because they are so infatuated with the Greek and Hebrew "nuances" that they miss plain, OBvious things staring them right in the face.

So far as Dr. Ruckman's "advanced revelations" are concerned, the point again that these great intellectual "scholars" overlook the OBvious GREAT truth right in front of them to point out some irrelevant little "nuance" from the Greek or Hebrew.  these little "nuances" add ZERO to the Christian's daily walk with the Lord.

 

(BTW - the phrase "advanced revelation" is a tongue-in-cheek expression used to mock these bloated, egotistical "scholars.")

 

In addition, some of the "advanced revelation" in the KJV has to do with the specific wording of the KJV, the chapter and verse numbering, and the order of the books.  When you do a word study in the KJV you will find some amazing doctrinal points that you can not find in the Greek or Hebrew, because the Greek or Hebrew might use 3 or 4 words for that one English word. 

 

Again - missing the OBvious, overstating the insignificant.  There is not one major Bible truth these "scholars" have found that cannot be found in the English KJV without the aid of any Greek or Hebrew.  The Biblical phrase is "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel."

 

So what is Dr. Ruckman driving at when he makes these statements?  The "scholars" are a fraud, boasting about their intellectual abilities, and trying to get the Bible student to rely on education instead of the Holy Spirit.  NOBody that God called in the Bible talks like the "scholars" talk.  They believed what they HAD IN THEIR HANDS to be the infallible authority.  God called commercial fisherman and shepherds, and every once in a while, he would get an educated man.  He calls men from all walks of life REGARDLESS of how much formal education they have.  The right attitude toward the word of God is what is important - see Isa. 66:1-2.

 

I am not against education.  I am not against learning Greek and/or Hebrew.  In fact, these are required courses at Dr. Ruckman's school - and we don't even learn from the TR - we learn from the CT so that we can understand how to use the Critical Apparatus (Nestles or the UBS4).  We were taught this so that when we come across a Bible corrector, WE CAN CHECK THEM OUT, and ultimately prove them WRONG from their own sources (something I have done many times!)

 

Riplinger:  I think she has a lot of good ideas and material, but I also think she pushes some of her ideas a little bit too far.  Her book In Awe of Thy Word has 700 pages of historical background with some amazing material in it.  She is a linguist by trade, so some of her material on the linguistics of the KJV are insightful.  I simply do not believe all of the attacks on her scholarship and credentials.  The books I have read from her have been very interesting, insightful and helpful of my understanding of the issue.  GOOD FRUIT (Mt. 7).  I have not found anything that she has written to violate any portion of Scripture at all.

 

I would not believe all of the negative press on either one of these individuals.  Anyone who stands up for God's word will be viciously attacked and maligned.  Br. Cloud often is, though for different reasons that Ruckman or Riplinger are.  The bottom line is that all three of them take a strong stand for God's word, and they are hated and vilified for it.  The test Jesus Christ gave us for determing a true prophet from a false prophet is found in Matthew 7 - "by their fruits ye shall know them." 

Of course, there are some bad apples that associate themselves with Dr. Ruckman, but anyone with any sense could see that these bad apples are just that.  However, these bad apples may not be representative of the GOOD fruit Dr. Ruckman has produced.  He has seen countless souls saved in his many years in the ministry, countless backsliders reclaimed, and has trained many good men for the ministry who are still out in the ministry.  Some of these guys are averaging over one soul a day saved on their respective missionary fields.  They are good men who love the Lord, win souls, and pastor churches.  Dr. Ruckman's desire for the Christian is that they spend time in daily fellowship with the Lord and have rewards for their service at the Judgment Seat of Christ. 

 

If you really want to see the heart of Dr. Ruckman, then you should invest some time and money getting some of his preaching.  He does not preach on the KJV all the time - in fact, very rarely.  His preaching centers on salvation, service, judgment for saved and lost, and prophecy.   I would be happy to send you some samples if you want.  Just send me your mailing address in a PM. 

 

Again, this is why I say that 2 or 3 random quotes do not properly reflect the true nature of the ministry God has given Dr. Ruckman.  I sat under that ministry and saw it first hand for 4 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Clarification:

As far as an "endorsement" of Riplinger's position goes, that depends on your version of her "position." 

 

I have read most of her books.  Have you?

She, as anyone else, is human, and at times may get "off track."  Just as Dr. Ruckman is not right on every point, nor your favorite preacher/teacher. 

 

However, I have not seen where anything she has advanced contradicts Scripture - and that is the ultimate test - regardless of anyone else's "critique" of her work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Clarification:

As far as an "endorsement" of Riplinger's position goes, that depends on your version of her "position." 

 

I have read most of her books.  Have you?

She, as anyone else, is human, and at times may get "off track."  Just as Dr. Ruckman is not right on every point, nor your favorite preacher/teacher. 

 

However, I have not seen where anything she has advanced contradicts Scripture - and that is the ultimate test - regardless of anyone else's "critique" of her work. 

have you read Phil Stringer's books on Riplinger? also I have seen personal examples of how she is dishonest in her use of quotes, I have read her book New Age Bible versions and a lot of Hazardous Materials.

 

I don't trust Riplinger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By BibleBeliever5
      Hi, I would love to hear the community’s feedback about using an update to the King James Version.  I love the KJV.  But the language is basically 400 year-old English.  So if there were a simple and accurate update to the KJV that made no changes except updating the old language, would you want to use it?  What would be your thoughts generally about such an update?  Would you like it as a stand alone version, or as a parallel Bible with the current KJV?  It would be great to hear what you all think.  May God be glorified.
       
      In Christ,
      Joseph
    • By Alan
      Brethren,
      One of the main reasons why I joined OnLineBaptist was its adherence to the  King James Version of the Bible as the only version in the English language to be used as a scripture reference.
      Most of the folks here on OnLineBaptist know my stand for the KJV and my revulsion (yes, you read that correctly: revulsion), for any of the new versions (including the NKJV).
      After a thorough study of the issue (privately and up to a PhD in education), of the different versions of the Bible, I have long ago came to the conclusion that since the Revised Version (RV), of 1881 until the New King James Version (NKJV), all of these versions are corrupt in manuscript evidence, scholarship, integrity, and honestly.
      The current trend of folks using the newer versions on OnLineBaptist without the common courtesy to even mention which version they used, in my eyes, is deceitful. When a person signs on onto OnLineBaptist they know the rules concerning quoting from any version other than the KJV. So, in my eyes, the non-mentioning of which version they used is deliberate.
      Furthermore, intellectual honesty, a prerequisite for any serious Bible discussion, demands that the user of another person's material that is copyrighted to make known the material that they use. In the case of Bible versions, the abbreviated letters are enough; NIV, RV, RSV, NKJV, etc... This practice is well known, so, the usage of a non-KJV scripture passage, and not mentioning the version, in my eyes, is intellectually dis-honest. 
      Forgive me for being so blunt. To me this is a cardinal issue of extreme importance.
      Lastly, when an author makes a mistake, he should go back and correct that mistake. In the current case in point, the individuals who used a non-King James Version, needs to go back to every time they used the non-King James Version and either delete the reference, strike out the offending passage, or delete the entire passage.
      Regards,
      Alan
    • By Roselove
      I was wondering, does anyone know of a Bible translation, that is as accurate as the KJV, but has more modern writing? 
       
    • By fastjav390
      If you have Amazon Prime there's a few free videos about the King James bible that are worth the watch. One is entitled, "A Lamp in a Dark Place" and another is its sequel entitled, "Tares Among the Wheat". Both are pretty good. There's also one entitle, "KJV-The Making of the King James Bible". Finally, there's one entitled, "KJV- The Book that Changed the World" but that one you have to rent. The latter focuses a lot on King James himself, the translators and the socio-political environment of the time. Check them out if you can.
    • By birdlover99
      So I need help selecting the perfect bible. I've been looking but haven't found my one yet. I want it to be sturdy, large, normal sized print. Not the really tiny print. Words of god in red. I would really like to have the reference topics in the back but I would be ok if someone knew of a bible topics book separate I'd really appreaciate it, please when you reply send link too. 
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 15 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...