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.

Four Blood Moons on God’s Feast Days


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 4/13/2016 at 6:47 PM, Invicta said:

The tribulation was on One nation, Judea.  One city, Jerusalem.  One people, the Jews.

One woman at least ate her own child, See Deut. 28, People venturing out of the city were caught and tortured and crucified, up to 500 a night till there wer not enough crosses so more than one were nailed to the same cross. The nation was sold into slavery, so many that the price of slaves in the empire went to rock bottom because no one would buy them, see Deut 28.  Many were sent to the mines of Egypt, see Duet 28:68 They were exiled to all nations.

Brother Invicta,

Matt. 24:21 " For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

First, I would again like to ask you.. what do you do with the phrase "nor ever shall be"???

Second,I would ask why Jesus would use future tense verbage, specifically "shall be" if the event had already happened (supposedly in Deut.) well before the time Jesus spoke the words?

Third, Even though a woman did, in fact consume her own child (deut. 28:57),  and that is horrific, how much more horrific is it that millions of babies are aborted around the globe annually?

And again... as absolutely horrific as all the events were and even currently are, I must again say they will pale in comparison to the "great tribulation" Jesus Himself spoke of in Matt. 24
The "no, nor ever shall be" is a vital key. 
There is going to be no mistaking the when the "great tribulation" happens. And remember, He said "SHALL BE", not "has been".

On 4/14/2016 at 4:35 PM, Invicta said:

Show me where in Matt 24 or any of the other accounts where it says that it will be on the whole world, or that it ill be the worst ever?

I probably shouldn't ask, but just out of curiousity, what do you do with this verse?
Matt. 24:30 "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

"ALL of the tribes of the earth" shall mourn. When has that happened?
(or does ALL and EARTH not really mean ALL and EARTH to you?) Would all of the tribes of the earth not be "on the whole world"(in your words)?

"Mountain Christian" brought forth Luke 21:35 (and I concur) " For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth."

I would also like to point out Luke 21:25-26 "And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;"    "Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken."

We see "distress of nationS" (plural) so it could NOT just be Jerusalem or Israel. The word would have been "nation" not "nations" if that were the case.

Again... I would like to know what your understanding of "no, nor ever shall be" means in Matt.24:21???

Thank you!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Brother Invicta,

Or Land? Are we going to correct God's word? You may feel comfortable changing God's literal word... I do not. If the Lord meant merely "all them that dwell on the face of the whole land of Israel" He surely would have said so. However He didn't say that, His word says:  all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth."  Huge difference. 

And again (at least the 3rd time), I ask ... I would like to know what your understanding of "no, nor ever shall be" means in Matt.24:21???

Is that to be overlooked/twisted/changed as well?

Thank you!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Ronda said:

Brother Invicta,

And again (at least the 3rd time), I ask ... I would like to know what your understanding of "no, nor ever shall be" means in Matt.24:21???

 

 

In all fairness to Invicta, he did answer you a while back...which I highlighted in yellow (of his response) below...

 

On 4/13/2016 at 3:31 AM, Invicta said:

Dear Ronda

I have highlighted the point in red. The wording is "Such as"  not "never been so bad, nor ever will be so bad."  

In Acts 2:16, Peter shows that Joel's prophecy referred to his day.. The curses of Deut 28 were fulfilled within that generation

Sun moon and stars in prophecy refer to rulers, of the nation, see Genesis 37:9 where we see that the sun moon and stars represent people, in this case rulers of the family (the heads of the tribes of Israel)

I think it was you who posted the Larkin Chart on this thread

 

Here's the verse in question...with Invicta's point also highlighted in yellow...

Matthew 24:21
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

I don't agree with Invicta about this (which he knows), but if I understand his reasoning correctly (based on past exchanges), he is inferring that "such as" means that the tribulation will be one of a kind. He then gives examples of what happened in 70 A.D. (I think) to show the terrible things that happened during "that tribulation". So, with those events, he believes that the "tribulation" of 70 A.D. was (and is) the great tribulation spoken of in Matthew 24 since it was one of a kind (such as)...none like it since the beginning of the world to this time nor ever shall be.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Thank you both for the clarification, brothers NN and Invicta... Now I'd like to go back to the verse for yet another word:

Matt. 24:21 " For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

to the "shall be" part. Brother Invicta, please tell me: Why would Christ say "shall be" if the event had already happened?

Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
14 hours ago, Ronda said:

Thank you both for the clarification, brothers NN and Invicta... Now I'd like to go back to the verse for yet another word:

Matt. 24:21 " For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

to the "shall be" part. Brother Invicta, please tell me: Why would Christ say "shall be" if the event had already happened?

Thank you!

Sister Ronda

When Jesus spoke it was still future.  When I was not able to get on here at the beginning of the year, I studied the Olivet prophecy and wrote my conclusions. I am not sure if I finished it, as it has disappeared from my computer.  If I can find a backup I will post it on a new thread.  The first thing I noticed that I had not before, was that Matthew 24 was a direct continuation of Matthew 23.  Jesus had pronounced  all the woes on the leaders, that their house was left to them desolate and that it would all come on that generation. Leaving the temple the disciples said to Jesus. Look at these great stones (Some were said to be 25 tons.) how can this all be left desolate?  Matt 24 goes on from there.  If you don't know the history and horror of how that was all fulfilled, I suggest you read Josephus , Wars of the Jews, and you will find it all recorded in history by an eyewitness.

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

We do have to be careful with some terminology.

Does Luke 2:1

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed."

literally mean "all the world" was taxed?

There are many instances in Scripture where words or terms are used in an other than literal sense. Just as today we may read a headline stating "the whole world stopped to listen to the pope's spech" or "everyone around the world paused to hear the pope's speech". Did the "whole world" literally stop and listen? Did every person around the world actually pause and hear?

We do indeed have to be careful in our understanding of various wordings to detect if such should be taken literally or in a figurative or symbolic sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎2016‎年‎4‎月‎11‎日 at 3:45 AM, Invicta said:

These charts are worth  nothing, as they are not based on scripture Just one pint, for instance.  If you read Jeremiah carefully, the time of Jacobs trouble was the then impending trouble with Nebuchadnezzar.  Larkin's charts are fiction.

1. The time of Jacob's Trouble is future: the trouble that occured with Nebucahdnezzar was a foretaste of the impending doom of Revelation chapter 6-19 on the the whole earth.

2. Clarence Larkin's charts are not fiction. They are probably the best charts available for a biblical study, and understanding, of the end times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 4/20/2016 at 8:41 PM, Alan said:

1. The time of Jacob's Trouble is future: the trouble that occured with Nebucahdnezzar was a foretaste of the impending doom of Revelation chapter 6-19 on the the whole earth.

2. Clarence Larkin's charts are not fiction. They are probably the best charts available for a biblical study, and understanding, of the end times.

So why do you think Jacob's trouble is still yet to occur?

What scriptural evidence can you quote that says anything else about a Jacob's trouble happening beyond the OT?

If you have none, why put that time beyond the scriptures of the OT?

And if you can't answer the above the way you want by using 'then' current scripture history, are you willing to change your thinking on something that is only mentioned one time in scripture, without any 'modern' explanation that matches what most think about the 'time of Jacob's trouble'?

Seriously asked. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

So why do you think Jacob's trouble is still yet to occur?

What scriptural evidence can you quote that says anything else about a Jacob's trouble happening beyond the OT?

If you have none, why put that time beyond the scriptures of the OT?

And if you can't answer the above the way you want by using 'then' current scripture history, are you willing to change your thinking on something that is only mentioned one time in scripture, without any 'modern' explanation that matches what most think about the 'time of Jacob's trouble'?

Seriously asked. Thanks.

I had previously commented on the 'Time of Jacob's Trouble,' Jeremiah 30, specifically, Jeremiah 30:7 & 24, in the Revelation Chapter 19-22 Study. Here is the link:

As the material (short as it was), that I presented was rejected at the time I am not sure if it is worthwhile repeating the material as I do not want to create dissension, or a debate, over this issue. During the Revelation study I was bitterly attacked for my beliefs and I do not want a repetition of the  verbal animosity.

I will consider your questions for a day of two and at that time either reply or not reply.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, Alan said:

I will consider your questions for a day of two and at that time either reply or not reply.

Alan

:nuts: That really struck me funny, Alan! :th_laugh1::goodpost:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 4/19/2016 at 3:39 PM, Invicta said:

 If I can find a backup I will post it on a new thread.

Dear Invicta, thank you, but please don't bother. It shouldn't take finding a backup of notes to describe what " no, nor ever shall be " means to you. To me, it means what it says. Literally.

7 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

So why do you think Jacob's trouble is still yet to occur?

What scriptural evidence can you quote that says anything else about a Jacob's trouble happening beyond the OT?

Dear Genievanpreacher,  The "time of Jacob's trouble" noted in Jer. 30:7 has at least one prerequisite given.

Jer. 30:3 "For, lo, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith the Lord: and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it."

Reason #1. The Jews are back in the land, the time of Jacob's trouble could not have occurred prior to this event (the Jew's regathered back into Israel). Since this event did not happen until 1948, it is sure "the time of Jacob's trouble" could not happen until at least that precondition was met.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
8 hours ago, Ronda said:

Dear Invicta, thank you, but please don't bother. It shouldn't take finding a backup of notes to describe what " no, nor ever shall be " means to you. To me, it means what it says. Literally.

Dear Genievanpreacher,  The "time of Jacob's trouble" noted in Jer. 30:7 has at least one prerequisite given.

Jer. 30:3 "For, lo, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith the Lord: and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it."

Reason #1. The Jews are back in the land, the time of Jacob's trouble could not have occurred prior to this event (the Jew's regathered back into Israel). Since this event did not happen until 1948, it is sure "the time of Jacob's trouble" could not happen until at least that precondition was met.


 

While I agree with your premise this still adds a problem for if the rebirth of Israel in 1948 was a precondition, then the return of Christ for us could not have been imminent prior to 1948.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, Ronda said:

Dear Invicta, thank you, but please don't bother. It shouldn't take finding a backup of notes to describe what " no, nor ever shall be " means to you. To me, it means what it says. Literally.

Dear Genievanpreacher,  The "time of Jacob's trouble" noted in Jer. 30:7 has at least one prerequisite given.

Jer. 30:3 "For, lo, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith the Lord: and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it."

Reason #1. The Jews are back in the land, the time of Jacob's trouble could not have occurred prior to this event (the Jew's regathered back into Israel). Since this event did not happen until 1948, it is sure "the time of Jacob's trouble" could not happen until at least that precondition was met.


 

Dear Ronda

At the time it was written the Jews were in exile or about to be sent into exile and they returned under Zerubbabel and they did then possess the land so your Reason #1 is no reason at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 hours ago, John81 said:

While I agree with your premise this still adds a problem for if the rebirth of Israel in 1948 was a precondition, then the return of Christ for us could not have been imminent prior to 1948.

How so? It would only be a problem to those who believe the "time of Jacob's trouble" has to happen prior to the rapture. I do not. The rapture is imminent and will occur prior to the time of Jacob's trouble.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Invicta said:

At the time it was written the Jews were in exile or about to be sent into exile and they returned under Zerubbabel and they did then possess the land so your Reason #1 is no reason at all.

Dear Invicta,

If that was the case... why then would God's say  (in the same chapter) Jer. 30:24 "The fierce anger of the Lord shall not return, until he hath done it, and until he have performed the intents of his heart: in the latter days ye shall consider it." ?

Was the time of Zerubbabel the latter days? Did the Lord's fierce anger not return again? How can past events in the 500 BC's meet the definition of "latter days"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, Ronda said:

Dear Invicta,

If that was the case... why then would God's say  (in the same chapter) Jer. 30:24 "The fierce anger of the Lord shall not return, until he hath done it, and until he have performed the intents of his heart: in the latter days ye shall consider it." ?

Was the time of Zerubbabel the latter days? Did the Lord's fierce anger not return again? How can past events in the 500 BC's meet the definition of "latter days"?

As the return happened in B.C., why would you think it to be a future from now?

From their view in B.C. their return was latter days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The latter days were after the return, the former days were the days before the exile.  Zech. 8:11  But now I will not be unto the residue of this people as in the former days, saith the LORD of hosts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 hours ago, Invicta said:

The latter days were after the return, the former days were the days before the exile.  Zech. 8:11  But now I will not be unto the residue of this people as in the former days, saith the LORD of hosts.

Invicta,

Peter said the last days started after Jesus went to heaven. read Acts 2:17-18

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Razor earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
    • Razor went up a rank
      Collaborator
  • 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...