Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      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

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. 

No I have not.  I have no interest in reading someone's critique of somebody else.  It adds nothing to our knowledge of the KJV issue.  This is nothing more than gossip and backbiting.  

 

Riplinger's main points have not been refuted, so the only thing her critics can do is attack the way she got to her conclusions.  They have never SCRIPTURALLY refuted her points, only her methods.   Curious.

 

I am not saying she is blameless in the matter.

 

I am saying that her critics have added nothing to the discussion other than hearsay, gossip and backbiting.  Sounds like a bad case of "sour grapes" to me.  

 

So what is Stringer's position?  Perhaps you could enlighten us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 227
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

No I have not.  I have no interest in reading someone's critique of somebody else.  It adds nothing to our knowledge of the KJV issue.  This is nothing more than gossip and backbiting.  

 

Riplinger's main points have not been refuted, so the only thing her critics can do is attack the way she got to her conclusions.  They have never SCRIPTURALLY refuted her points, only her methods.   Curious.

 

I am not saying she is blameless in the matter.

 

I am saying that her critics have added nothing to the discussion other than hearsay, gossip and backbiting.  Sounds like a bad case of "sour grapes" to me.  

 

So what is Stringer's position?  Perhaps you could enlighten us?

In her book Hazardous Materials and New Age Bible Versions, she makes tons of quotes that would lead you to believe she is scholarly and that her information is factual, but when she does things like this how can you trust any of it:

 

In New Age Bible Versions, Riplinger claims that God has struck some "new version" Bible editors with the loss of their voice; Westcott is one of the editors of whom Riplinger has made this claim:

Westc
ot
t's biographer cites that in 1858 "he was quite inaudible" and by 1870 "His voice reached few and was understood by still fewer."[2]

Riplinger cites this as coming from the book Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. 1, written by his son, Arthur Westcott. The first misquote is from a line that actually tells of Westcott as a young man, as remembered by a Sir Dalrymple, who recalls, in a letter, Westcott's early years at Harrow School and that he was "shy, reserved, sensitive, a laborious student." Here is the actual paragraph from where Riplinger took her misquoted words:

He [Westc
ot
t] took his turn of preaching in Chapel, but he dreaded and disliked the duty, and 
he was quite inaudible
 to many of the boys. We knew all the same that his were no common sermons. It has been truly said "the se
nt
ences were closely packed with meaning, and the meaning was n
ot
always easy."[5] [bold text added to show the words Riplinger took out of co
nt
ext.]

The second misquoted line was again taken from Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. 1. In this case, a Dr. Butler gives another remembrance of Westcott in a letter to his son. Butler says:

You have kindly asked me to give you some impressions as to your father's work and influence at Harrow. [...] The years to which my words will refer are, speaking roughly, from 1860 to 1870. [...] At that time Mr. Westc
ot
t, n
ot
yet thirty-five years of age, held a very peculiar position at Harrow. He was little known in the School at large. He was n
ot
a Form Master. He had no "Large House" to administer. 
His voice
 was n
ot
yet a force in the chapel. It 
reached
 but 
few, and
 it 
was understood by still fewer.
 But even then he had at least two spheres of influence - his own pupils on the one hand, and the Masters on the
ot
her.[6]

Riplinger not only cut the two quotes from two different places in the original source but she also quoted the source incorrectly, leaving out the words that make the context clear, and making up her own quotation. Westcott never permanently lost his voice; he was simply known to have a quiet voice when he preached.

 

from: http://www.avpublications.org/gail-riplinger-misquotes.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

No I have not.  I have no interest in reading someone's critique of somebody else.  It adds nothing to our knowledge of the KJV issue.  This is nothing more than gossip and backbiting.  

 

Riplinger's main points have not been refuted, so the only thing her critics can do is attack the way she got to her conclusions.  They have never SCRIPTURALLY refuted her points, only her methods.   Curious.

 

I am not saying she is blameless in the matter.

 

I am saying that her critics have added nothing to the discussion other than hearsay, gossip and backbiting.  Sounds like a bad case of "sour grapes" to me.  

 

So what is Stringer's position?  Perhaps you could enlighten us?

From Stringer:

 

MEGALOMANIA ON STEROIDS
Listen to the claims that Gail Riplinger makes about herself:
“The reader is in for many surprises, some that will verge on riveting shock. Before this
book, no one had ever critically examined the authors of Greek and Hebrew study fools.”
(Hazardous Materials,
p. 13)
That’s right! No one ever understood before Gail Riplinger. Without her, you would be forever ignorant.
“The worse mistake a reader could make would be to suppose that, because an author
is not mentioned in this book, his Greek or Hebrew study tools are safe. All tools have
been examined and ALL are corrupt.” (Hazardous Materials, p.37)
That’s right! Gail Riplinger has studied everything. She has not missed anything.
“That with which the reader may not agree or which the reader may not understand
will be rectified upon reading the entire book. All questions have been anticipated and are
explained somewhere and in detail. Assuming, ‘the author does not know or understand
‘something’ will only be possible if the entire book is not read.” (Hazardous Materials, p.
40)
That’s right. Dr. Riplinger has anticipated all your questions. She has answered them all. It is not possible that the
author misunderstands anything.
When has anyone, male, or female, ever made such claims about their work? All for the “Greater Glory of Gail!”
TRUST DR. RIPLINGER TO TELL YOU WHAT THE GREEK MEANS!
“ I have done all of the Greek work for the reader.” (Hazardous Materials, p. 42).
What a statement! Don’t do any research. Don’t check out anything for yourself. Gail Riplinger will tell you what the
Greek means. Trust her as your authority. What kind of a Baptist allows someone do all of their thinking for them?
This proclamation is all the stranger when you realize that Gail Riplinger does not know Greek.
 
In a May, 1994 radio interview with Dr. Wayne House, Dr. Riplinger was forced to admit that she cannot read Greek or
Hebrew.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

some more from Stringer:

 

In the January-February 1994 edition of the “End Times Victorious Living Prophecy Newsletter,” Gail Riplinger stated:
“Daily, during the six years needed for this investigation, the Lord miraculously brought
the needed materials and resources—much like the ravens fed Elijah. Each discovery was not
the result of effort on my part, but of the direct hand of God—so much so that I hesitated to
even put my name on the book. Consequently, I used G. A. Riplinger—God as author and
Riplinger as secretary.”
That is an incredible statement in Baptist circles. It is literally a claim to divine inspiration.
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

https://www.biblefortoday.org/PDF/StringerOnRiplinger.pdfheres a free link to his book:

 

The main points about Riplinger are that she basically claims Inspiration of God, she tear down all other people as authorities similar to a cult leader, Shes a woman teaching and preaching in churches which no other woman could get away with in Baptist circles, and she is not even an actual linguistic, She has also threatened to sue D.A. Waite when they found out that she had lied to them and the publicly stopped promoting her and her books in the Dean Burgon Society.

 

The Woman cannot be trusted, and she brings a lot of division into the King James camp, I think she's making a fool out of a lot of Baptist pastors who are promoting her, and also causing King James Bible defenders to be less credible when she manipulates quotes in her books. here is some examples from David Cloud:

 

 On page 2 Mrs. Riplinger misquotes Edwin Palmer, editor of the NIV. It would appear from the quote that Palmer is questioning the deity of Jesus Christ. She prefaces the quote with these words: 

“The NIV’s chief editor vaunts his version’s heresy saying: ... [F]ew clear and decisive texts say that Jesus is God.” 

In her notes, Mrs. Riplinger cites The Making of a Contemporary Translation, p. 143. 
Actually Palmer IN NO WAY is questioning the deity of Jesus Christ. In fact, in the paragraph cited, HE IS CONTENDING for Christ’s deity! The full quote which Mrs. Riplinger has pulled out of context is as follows:

“John 1:18, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is one of those few clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God. But, due to no fault of its own, the KJV, following inferior manuscripts, has altered what the Holy Spirit said through John. It calls John ‘Son’, whereas it should have called him ‘God.’” 

 

 On page 59 Mrs. Riplinger calls John Burgon “a dissenting scholar on the ‘New Greek N.T. committee.” 

In fact, Burgon had nothing to do with the committee that produced the Westcott-Hort Greek N.T. or any other Greek New Testament.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have no dog in this Riplinger fight I just thought I might mention something I noticed.

 

Concerning this Riplinger discussion I know nothing about her or her writings apart from what I see on here but I would offer a little advice.  I read the article on the website you posted http://www.avpublications.org/with interest and like I always do I like to check the sources of the post so I clicked on the address on the bottom of the page hoping to see the homepage of the site.  All it did was loop me back to the same page I was already on.  I checked another way, I went to the address line and deleted the last half of the address relating to the open page.  So up comes the same page.  All this to say, I have no idea who owns that website and if they can be trusted.  I would be more careful about things on the internet you use as proof of your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Jordan

You have proven my point, so thank you for that.

This is simply an attack on her method, not on her product.  I am not necessarily condoning anything she did, per se, but there is nothing in any of those quotes that refutes her main thesis.

Everything you posted is second, third, and fourth hand information, regurgitated ad nauseum by her detractors. 

This amounts to little more than a witch hunt and character assassination. 

 

How about we discuss the issue of the preservation of the KJV?

 

I asked you about Phil Stringer's position on the KJV.  Could you provide that, or do you just want to continue bashing Riplinger?

 

As for me, there is nothing personal in anything I say here, so I hope you do not misinterpret anything I have said as a personal attack on you or anyone else.  '

You asked me for my opinion about Riplinger and I gave it. 

Then you just pile on her dishing up the same old tired trash from a bunch of babies who for some reason have chosen to attack her instead of simply defend the KJV and sound doctrine. 

 

I should also ask if you personally have read her books in their entirety, and done any of the research yourself, or if you are just taking the word of somebody else on the matter?

 

As for me personally, I have read her books, and checked the Scriptural references.  I don't have the time or the resources to go further than that, so that is why I cannot say for any certainty that her methods as far as quoting and citing other sources is correct.  But I know her approach is correct, and that the changes made in the new versions fall into lockstep with the new age movement.  Thus, her thesis is correct.

 

I don't know why these goons out there have to take issue with her method....why can't they discuss the ISSUE, which is the KJV

As far as her claims to receive information and help from the Lord - my goodness - what a childish accusation. 

It is my sincere hope and prayer that when I stand in the pulpit to preach and teach, that the Lord is speaking through me - that my lessons, sermons, study, and preparation all came from the Lord, and that the delivery of that message has the power of the Holy Spirit behind it.  Why would we criticize someone who is trying help her fellow believers for claiming the same thing? 

 

This whole conversation is just ridiculous and disgusting to me - attacking God's people who love and defend the KJV on a personal level, rather than dealing with the issues they raise.

 

I bid thee farewell on this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't care either way but to dismiss it all as "the same old tired trash" is quite surprising.

To show that she has deceitfully misused quotes to for instance 'prove' that God struck him with loss of voice IS relevant.

You complain on one hand of people misquoting Mr Ruckman, but then excuse this Rippling for doing precisely that.

A person's character is relevant in such discussions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't care either way but to dismiss it all as "the same old tired trash" is quite surprising.

To show that she has deceitfully misused quotes to for instance 'prove' that God struck him with loss of voice IS relevant.

You complain on one hand of people misquoting Mr Ruckman, but then excuse this Rippling for doing precisely that.

A person's character is relevant in such discussions.

No Dave, I am not excusing Gail Riplinger at all.  I have said that I am not in a position to determine if she has misquoted anyone or not.  All I have heard is 2nd and 3rd hand information, which I cannot prove either way.  

 

I can speak to the misquoting of Dr. Ruckman because I have first hand knowledge of the situation.

 

I have said repeatedly that the quotations given to discredit Riplinger are personal attacks that do not disprove her main thesis.  Her thesis is solid and has not been disproven.  

I have stated that her methods MIGHT BE questionable.  I give allowance for that.  

 

My point is that we are rehashing the same old tired quotes that have been batted around in IFB circles for a long time, and none of this helps anyone's cause regarding the KJV.  These are indeed character attacks, they do not refute her position, only attempt to discredit her on a personal level.  It is the same approach they use on Dr. Ruckman, and that is why I am suspicious of these attacks. 

 

The material Riplinger has presented is worth consideration, and I have not found anything unscriptural in her conclusions, even if her methods are suspect.  Her thesis has not been refuted, her conclusions have not been refuted.  All these guys are doing is throwing sticks at her in an attempt to discredit her....I ain't drinking their koolaid.   I can't prove her right or wrong on the issue of her quotations from other sources, but I can't prove her detractors right or wrong either.  I am simply not going to just believe THEIR claims, but I am not going to entirely dismiss them either.

 

Now if these same guys had spent as much time dismantling her SUBJECT, THESIS, and CONCLUSIONS, then we would have something to work with, wouldn't we?  But they didn't - they attacked HER.  So that does not speak well of them, now does it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I dunno - if someone - anyone - lies in the presentation of their argument, it kinda affects the strength of the argument.

Like when someone deliberately misquotes say, Mr Ruckman for the purposes of discrediting him, and someone else reveals through proper use of the quotation that the original quote was wrong, the original quoter kinda loses face with the audience.

You are inclined to not trust anything else he says.

Or if someone uses a quote to suggest that someone else was judged by God, and it turns out that the quote was from before the work that was apparently judged, the original quoter sorta loses face before the audience, and I for one am less inclined to trust them.

But let's not mention double standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yes I have read her book New Age Bible Versions in it's entirety, the way she applies some scriptures is really bad interpretaion, some of her ideas about things really caused me to scratch my head.

 

And yes it is completely relevant that she misuses quotes, especially because in Hazardous Materials the main support she has is quotes and information bashing in Greek and Hebrew Lexicons and scholars, so it is completely relevant.

 

Riplinger may suport the KJV, but she sure does more damage to the position in the way she defends it... in fact her arguments really don't hold up, she just uses a bunch of quotes that are prOBably not even true to overwhelm you and make you think she's a scholar.

 

Greek and Hebrew does in fact often make the English translation more clear in certain places, to deny that is a denial of facts, does that mean the English is not sufficient, no, Study of Greek and Hebrew is just a tool one can use, Funny how the same people who are against Greek and Hebrew also often use uninspired commentaries, I think we can all agree that commentaries can sometimes shed light, yet we still use them.

 

people who bash on the learning and usage of Greek and Hebrew Lexicons are making a virtue out of ignorance, and if these people were to be consistent, then they need to throw out their study bibles, commentaries, etc.

 

Greek and Hebrew learning is a fallible tool, OBviously our final authority is the King James bible, which we know is reliable, we would not even have a King James Bible if the translators held to Riplinger's position.

 

I find Riplinger's arguments for King James Only to be lacking, and I would not cite her or her books to defend the King James bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I dunno - if someone - anyone - lies in the presentation of their argument, it kinda affects the strength of the argument.

Like when someone deliberately misquotes say, Mr Ruckman for the purposes of discrediting him, and someone else reveals through proper use of the quotation that the original quote was wrong, the original quoter kinda loses face with the audience.

You are inclined to not trust anything else he says.

Or if someone uses a quote to suggest that someone else was judged by God, and it turns out that the quote was from before the work that was apparently judged, the original quoter sorta loses face before the audience, and I for one am less inclined to trust them.

But let's not mention double standards.

This is ridiculous.

 

David Cloud misquotes and misrepresents Dr. Ruckman, yet I trust Cloud on most everything else he presents.  I just know he is off base on THAT SUBJECT.  How so?  Because I can check his work and compare it with Scripture.

 

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater....

Eat the chicken and throw away the bones...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yes I have read her book New Age Bible Versions in it's entirety, the way she applies some scriptures is really bad interpretaion, some of her ideas about things really caused me to scratch my head.

 

And yes it is completely relevant that she misuses quotes, especially because in Hazardous Materials the main support she has is quotes and information bashing in Greek and Hebrew Lexicons and scholars, so it is completely relevant.

 

Riplinger may suport the KJV, but she sure does more damage to the position in the way she defends it... in fact her arguments really don't hold up, she just uses a bunch of quotes that are prOBably not even true to overwhelm you and make you think she's a scholar.

 

Greek and Hebrew does in fact often make the English translation more clear in certain places, to deny that is a denial of facts, does that mean the English is not sufficient, no, Study of Greek and Hebrew is just a tool one can use, Funny how the same people who are against Greek and Hebrew also often use uninspired commentaries, I think we can all agree that commentaries can sometimes shed light, yet we still use them.

 

people who bash on the learning and usage of Greek and Hebrew Lexicons are making a virtue out of ignorance, and if these people were to be consistent, then they need to throw out their study bibles, commentaries, etc.

 

Greek and Hebrew learning is a fallible tool, OBviously our final authority is the King James bible, which we know is reliable, we would not even have a King James Bible if the translators held to Riplinger's position.

 

I find Riplinger's arguments for King James Only to be lacking, and I would not cite her or her books to defend the King James bible.

Ok, so what I am hearing you say is that you don't like her approach.  But you have not answered some important questions:

 

1.  Have you personally checked her citations from the sources she listed to find out if she is misquoting someone, or did you get that information second and third hand?  If you are relying on someone else to feed you that info, then we have to ask if that second hand source is accurate or not.

 

2.  I don't consider an intensive study of the KJV to be ignorance.  Dr. Ruckman's works have proven conclusively that you don't need Greek and Hebrew to "clarify" anything.   The people who go back to the Greek and Hebrew have not brought out anything that cannot be found in the KJV.

 

3.  You have not actually dismantled Riplinger's thesis or conclusions.  You have stated that you did not LIKE some of the things she said, and that you QUESTIONED parts of her book.  That would be normal for any book you read, right?  So why pick on her?

 

4.  Your statements betray you.  You OBviously have not read and understood the point Riplinger is making in Hazardous Materials, and you are unable to make the proper application because of your bias against her.  Unfortunate.  You truly have thrown the baby out with the bathwater....your loss...

 

5.  You still have not answered my question about Stringer's position on the KJV, even though I have asked 3 times now.  Why continue the Riplinger bashing when you could shed some more light?  Or is it just that Stringer's position is the Anti-Riplinger position?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Machiavelli would be proud...

Wow...so now you accuse me of being dishonest?

 

That's a low blow.

adjective 

1.

of, like, or befitting Machiavelli.

2.

being or acting in accordance with the principles of government analyzed in Machiavelli's The Prince, in which political expediency is placed above morality and the use of craft and deceit to maintain the authority and carry out the policies of a ruler is described.

3.

characterized by subtle or unscrupulous cunning, deception, expediency, or dishonesty:

 

I have been honest here.  I can't comment on Riplinger's quotations because, as I have said, I do not have the time or resources to check them out.  

But let's be honest...NOBODY ELSE HERE HAS EITHER.  Everyone is operating off what SOMEBODY ELSE SAID about her quotes, and, so far as I know, NOBODY has checked these quotes out personally.  I at least am willing to admit it.  

So the entire argument against Riplinger is that she misquotes her sources, which is only proven by 2nd and 3rd hand information, which is accepted without question.

 

Now, considering that this is the exact same tactic used against Dr. Ruckman, and considering that I know for a fact that those cheap shots against Dr. Ruckman are blatantly false, then I have to question the criticisms of Riplinger.  

 

Machiavellian???  

That is just plain uncalled for, offensive, disgusting, and abhorrent.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

Steve, cut it out. Apparently you have come back with an axe to grind.  No, I did not accuse you of being dishonest.  The reference to Machiavelli is simply applied to your acceptance of Riplinger's conclusions, regardless of her methods (not to you personally).  I'm sorry, but I do not believe the ends justify the means.  Scripture does not teach that, either.  She lied.  She lied. She lied.  Enough for me to disregard her stuff - yes, completely.  There's a boatload of excellent work, scholarly work, honestly written, that I don't need hers. To defend her lies by citing her conclusions, and calling those who've pointed them out "goons", is Machiavellian.  That has nothing to do with your honesty, but everything to do with what you (generically meant) accept.  

 

I don't like Ruckman - and it's based on stuff he wrote and actually said...that I heard with my own ears.  You want to defend him, go ahead and do it. It matters not the least to me. You like Riplinger's conclusions regardless of her lies in her presentation (and, really, how hard is it to research the lies she told?  Not very.  She openly admitted not knowing Greek or Hebrew and said God gave her her information...claiming inspiration, without actually using the words. Meh, no thanks.), go for it.  But that isn't hard to research, either.  That doesn't mean I'm calling you dishonest.

 

Mayhap I find defense of a liar abhorrent, uncalled for, offensive, and disgusting.  But I never said you were dishonest. Nor did I imply it. Thicken your skin, Steve. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

NOBody has proven to me that she has lied....

I am to trust what her critics say absolutely without question, but I can't trust what she says in her own defense????

 

Not very Christian like.

 

I don't understand how we can discuss something 2nd hand and accept the accusations without question.  Since nOBody here can prove it either way, then all we really have the right to discuss is the substance of her arguments, and NOBODY wants to do that.

 

Shame on all of you.

 

I provided the definition of Machiavellian above, and that is what I went off.  You don't have to worry about my skin being thick enough - I have faced some pretty hostile crowds.  You are the one who levelled that charge against me, and yes, it is a charge of being dishonest - CHECK THE DEFINITION.

 

And as a reminder, the only reason I jumped into this discussion is because of the FALSE ACCUSATIONS leveled against somebody that I know personally.  Those false accusations have not been retracted.  There is no "axe to grind."  I just don't like it when people are dishonest in their mischaracterization of people, and when they fail to discuss the actual substance of the issue.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

Well, since she herself said she got her writings from God, inferring inspiration, I guess we can let her words speak for themselves.  I could care less, really, if you choose to believe what she says in her own defense. That's your choice. *shrugs* I don't think that's even been an issue

 

I know the definition, thanks.  I'm actually up on my vocabulary, and use words as they fit into the topic.  The Machiavellian principle of ends justifying means is what was intended, but, hey, you don't have to believe me that I wasn't "leveling the charge against you".  After all, since I said it, I must not know what I intended, right?  And, believe me, I'm not worried about your skin being thick enough. I simply adjured you to thicken your skin because you were seeing a personal attack where there was none. And that's not very Christ like...

 

Yes, I don't like it when people are dishonest in their characterizations of people, either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Machiavelli would be proud...

This was posted after one of my posts.  

It is not a very clear post.  No explanation. No elaboration.  But OBviously was addressed to me, since it followed one of my posts.  And I never said the "ends justifies the means."  

I said I could not comment on her  methods, because I don't have the time or resources to check them.  

What that means is that I would have to get the sources she cited and check them for myself.  I don't trust her critics to be honest in their representation of her.  

Why?

BECAUSE THEY DON'T DEAL WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF HER ARGUMENT.   If her argument is wrong, then prove it wrong - don't waste my time trying to convince me she "lied."  ALL MEN ARE LIARS, including her critics.  So why should I trust her critics more than her????????????????  It makes no sense.

 

I have addressed the accusations of her claiming inspiration...

 

I have been absolutely clear in my position, but because I am not ready to throw Riplinger or Ruckman under the bus based on hearsay, inuendo, and 2nd hand information, then my posts are largely UNREAD in their entirety.  I am getting the same treatment they get.  

 

Second hand accusations don't cut it for me.  All of this stuff is Diotrephes at work.  

And I think we all have better things to do.

 

I would suggest that we simply close the thread.  We are not getting anywhere nor  are we edifying each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recent Achievements

    • StandInTheGap earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Mark C went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Razor earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...