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.

Reverend?


DaveW

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

​You don't know what I think, and ought to stop putting words in mouth that were never there.  I do believe in Unconditional Election, so no I don't believe there is anything about me that's inherently better.  Any goodness in Elect comes from Jesus, not from them.

 

And I did use those words descriptively.

When you describe what you think, we do know what you think - and you made it plain in the other thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

​So, I'm not sure where this is found in scripture, but, as was mentioned above, God commendeth His love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. JOhn 3:16 says "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..." The 'world', is the lost, in this context. God loved us when we were lost, unsaved and on the way to hell. So, to tell people God hates them, but he wants to love them and save them, is absolutely unscriptural. Seriously, would you be inclined to marry someone who said, "Well, I hate you as you are, but if you married me, I would love you."  Got hates sin, but loves sinners, sent His Son Jesus Christ to die for them, for US. His love for man isn't predicated on our acceptance of Him because He loved us before we loved Him.

I see so many things that are Scripturally wrong with that statement!  First off, as mentioned by others in this thread, Christ died for us.  In the past.  He loved the world. (John 3:16).  Loved is in past tense, referring to something that happened or was the case in the past.  Now let's take a look at John 3:17-18: "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.Notice that it says that though Him the world might be Saved.  Not "will be Saved," not "going to be Saved," not even "may be Saved".  In other words, there is only a some odd chance that one actually will be Saved.  That's not me making things up, or claiming something I want.  In fact, I don't want most anyone to go to Hell.  That's just plain and careful reading of the Christian Bible and accepting what it says.  Then the Bible goes on to tell us that those that don't believe (present tense) are condemned already.  Anyway you look at it, this is not an expression of unconditional love that "love preachers" often claim by taking John 3:16 out of context.

Regarding your marriage analogy, that is rather unscriptural.  When we are Born Again, we are converted.  We are not same persons that we were before we were Saved.  So to use your analogy, it would be more like, "if you really wished to change, and become an entirely different person, full of Grace and goodness and charity, then I would love you."  Of course, the Salvation equation is not that simple, and neither are the issues of Jesus' love for His Elect and the despise He has for the reprobate children of the devil. (John 8:44-45)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Here you go ProudBob - we don't have to guess at your attitude:

".....  Talk down to them, but with wit and knowledge, and always truthfully.  If they try to smartmouth you, nothing is better than exposing them for the fools that they are--....."

the whole post can be found in the link by NN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And I stand by those words 100%.  Of course they don't say or imply what you claim.  I urge you to stop lying for Satan, repent, and accept the true Jesus of the Christian Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Rob, I'm not aware of DaveW making any statement of belief that differs from the forum's doctrinal statement, so if you think DaveW is embracing a false Jesus and is therefore unsaved, then by extension that must be your belief about everyone on here who agrees with the board's doctrinal statement, which is probably 99% of folk on here.

The webmaster makes it very, very clear what his forum is for: it's for Christian fellowship, i.e. fellowship between people who consider each other brothers and sisters in Christ. So if you think most or all the people here are not brothers and sisters in Christ, then what are you doing here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

First off, as mentioned by others in this thread, Christ died for us.  In the past.  He loved the world. (John 3:16).  Loved is in past tense, referring to something that happened or was the case in the past

​For all your many explanations, there is one glaring thing wrong with your eisegesis. John 3:16 isn't in past tense because God loved the world in the past (and supposedly no longer does so), it is in past tense because God gave His Son (as a baby, on the cross, whichever) in the past. There is no need for long, convoluted explanations to make the Bible say something it doesn't.  

And I stand by those words 100%.  Of course they don't say or imply what you claim.  I urge you to stop lying for Satan, repent, and accept the true Jesus of the Christian Bible.

You know, when I was a young adult, my youth group spent a good deal of time discussing Calvinism. Not that we knew that that was what it was called. There was a strong Reformed element in our community, and their teachings filtered through the schools and into our youth. We called it predestinationism (from the verse that started the whole discussion). You know what I discovered? That the god of Calvinism - the god you describe - who creates people just to send them to hell without giving them any option to escape is a sadist, and not worth worshipping. I will stick with the God my Bible describes, clearly and plainly, Who created all, and loves them, and wishes to be loved & obeyed by them as free individuals - not as automatons. Does the Bible say God hates the workers of iniquity? Yes. Are we all workers of iniquity? Yes. Does the Bible say God loves us and sent His son to give us (all) salvation? Yes. Can I, in my human mind, completely reconcile the two statements? Not really. I can partially reconcile it through phrases like 'God hates the sin but loves the sinner'. But here's the thing - God is a wee bit bigger than my puny mind. And I do not have to completely understand something for it to be true.


RevBob, we do not support Calvinist heresy on this site, and I think we've heard enough of your claims for a while. You will cease stating that the beliefs on this board are of Satan (!), and you will desist from promoting your beliefs in this area any further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I see so many things that are Scripturally wrong with that statement!  First off, as mentioned by others in this thread, Christ died for us.  In the past.  He loved the world. (John 3:16).  Loved is in past tense, referring to something that happened or was the case in the past.  Now let's take a look at John 3:17-18: "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.Notice that it says that though Him the world might be Saved.  Not "will be Saved," not "going to be Saved," not even "may be Saved".  In other words, there is only a some odd chance that one actually will be Saved.  That's not me making things up, or claiming something I want.  In fact, I don't want most anyone to go to Hell.  That's just plain and careful reading of the Christian Bible and accepting what it says.  Then the Bible goes on to tell us that those that don't believe (present tense) are condemned already.  Anyway you look at it, this is not an expression of unconditional love that "love preachers" often claim by taking John 3:16 out of context.

Regarding your marriage analogy, that is rather unscriptural.  When we are Born Again, we are converted.  We are not same persons that we were before we were Saved.  So to use your analogy, it would be more like, "if you really wished to change, and become an entirely different person, full of Grace and goodness and charity, then I would love you."  Of course, the Salvation equation is not that simple, and neither are the issues of Jesus' love for His Elect and the despise He has for the reprobate children of the devil. (John 8:44-45)

​That's not an example of plain and careful reading. That's an example of eisegetical reading (i.e. reading your assumptions into it) while ignoring the rest of Scripture. You're quibbling over past and present tense when it makes no contextual sense to do so. As mentioned above, if we take your method of reading with Romans 5:8, then God still hates you and you're going to hell. You see, it says that Christ died, which is past tense. It also says that He died while we were sinners so unless you were born and living in Rome in the first century then Paul wasn't talking to you. You weren't born yet so you couldn't have sinned yet. That's all past tense, so I'm sorry to tell you, you're not one of the elect.

Furthermore, Romans 10:13 and Acts 2:21 make clear that anyone can call on Jesus and they will be saved with certainty. Unfortunately for your point of view, 1 John 2:2 says that Jesus was the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. That's an all-inclusive term, so you either have to admit that limited atonement is false, or you have to say that since it was past tense He isn't the propitiation for sins now, just back then, which means once again...you're not one of the elect because that was past tense and you're in the present almost 2000 years later.

Your reading is not plain and careful. It's sloppy and based on your own preconceived notions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

​For all your many explanations, there is one glaring thing wrong with your eisegesis. John 3:16 isn't in past tense because God loved the world in the past (and supposedly no longer does so), it is in past tense because God gave His Son (as a baby, on the cross, whichever) in the past. There is no need for long, convoluted explanations to make the Bible say something it doesn't. 

​If that was the case, then the Bible woulld've said something like "For God so loves the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that anyone could be Saved".  But that's not what the Bible says, is it?  And this has nothing to do with Calvinism, nor do I worship Calvin as some of your members said.  The latter is a blatant lie, btw.  So do you allow lies?  Do you consider liars to be Saved?

Regarding Jesus hating the reprobates, here's a short essay by one of the most illustrious preachers of this day and age, Dr. Tony Demarcus.  Dr. Tony's ministries are focused on those entangled in carnal sins, such as professional harlots in Nevada, lesbidians, nudists, and Catholics.  He has led hundreds of these former sinners to Salvation!

 

It is only so often that we hear heathens proclaim spiritual rubbish along the lines of "Jesus hates nobody".  My typical response to educate these pagans and cultural pseudo-Christians is "What the hell do you mean that Jesus doesn't hate?"

As always we must look to the Bible (KJV 1611 ONLY) relative to absolutely any belief we may hold.  The Bible tells that Jesus approved of His Father's command that children who cursed their parents should be stoned to death (Matthew 15:3-4). Does this sound like forgivness and love to you? It is blatent intolerance for anyone that does not follow the Word! Jesus told his disciples to bring before Him any non-believer and to slaughter that non-believer to death right before Jesus' eyes (Luke 19:27). Yes this is a parable, but it refers to His second coming. But the main facts are that JESUS spoke this parable, therefore the KILLING reference is attributed to Him! Does one KILL because they love someone or because they HATE them?  Heathens are such ignorant dolts!

More so, Jesus had one man eaten alive by a swarm of worms because the man failed to give Jesus His due (Acts 12:23). Jesus struck a Jew blind for thwarting His teachings.  He struck a man dumb for not paying close enough attention (Luke 1:20). He SCARED a husband and wife to DEATH for not giving Him all the money they made on a real estate transaction!!!! (Acts 5:1-10). Does this sound like love and forgiveness to you? Jesus had to hate these people to be able to do these abhorred acts. This is the Jesus that we know, love, and worship.

Jesus told us we are to live in constant fear of God for He can torture us forever in Hell (Luke 12:5). This is why we must take a rather abusive manner regarding the heathen that does not follow ALL of the doctrines and precepts within the Bible. We don't have time to sugar-coat Gods word, H-E-L-L-O!

If one opts for Christianity, it is beyond me to think that anyone is able to extrapolate from the Bible that of which they accept, the lovey dovey Jesus loves me parts, and not be held responsible for the obligation of the whole where our Savior is KILLING AND TORTURING His creation! I for one cannot usurp what God has written regarding how His Son reacted in certain instances, therefore setting an example, can you?

Now this is how you preach to smartmouthed teenagers!  This is how you preach to the Mor(m)on youngsters!  This is how you get them to respect and fear the Lord, and, as the old hymn goes, to "trust and obey"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Nice Bob...including a quote with foul language from a man that I can't verify exists.

A quote that takes God's word so far out of context, it's not even worth trying to correct...the rubbish speaks for itself.

I still think you're a troll...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Nice Bob...including a quote with foul language from a man that I can't verify exists.

A quote that takes God's word so far out of context, it's not even worth trying to correct...the rubbish speaks for itself.

​Foul language?  Where?  And I see nothing out of context there.   The Bible clearly says what it says.  We are to Believe it and follow it.

I still think you're a troll...

Well, I really care about what Jesus thinks, and not what some man on the internet may think of me or my dedication to the cause of Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Well we can clearly see the faulty use of God's Word in that rubbish.

So many errors of fact - not even "different inerpretation" - just plain misunderstanding - or is it deliberate misrepresentation?

Just to show one:

Why did "the husband and wife" die?

The Bible actually explains that this (false) preacher is wrong. He simply can't read......

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
 

​Foul language?  Where? 

Where? Here...

 

 

 It is only so often that we hear heathens proclaim spiritual rubbish along the lines of "Jesus hates nobody".  My typical response to educate these pagans and cultural pseudo-Christians is

"What the hell do you mean that Jesus doesn't hate?"

The use of the word "hell" in such a way is foul language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

"God so loves the world that He gave..."? Sorry, but the English language does not allow for such a mangling of verb tenses. Your proposed revision is not a possibility. 

I feel like I remember a Reverend Cooper back a while... Any chance you're related to him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I see so many things that are Scripturally wrong with that statement!  First off, as mentioned by others in this thread, Christ died for us.  In the past.  He loved the world. (John 3:16).  Loved is in past tense, referring to something that happened or was the case in the past.  Now let's take a look at John 3:17-18: "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.Notice that it says that though Him the world might be Saved.  Not "will be Saved," not "going to be Saved," not even "may be Saved".  In other words, there is only a some odd chance that one actually will be Saved.  That's not me making things up, or claiming something I want.  In fact, I don't want most anyone to go to Hell.  That's just plain and careful reading of the Christian Bible and accepting what it says.  Then the Bible goes on to tell us that those that don't believe (present tense) are condemned already.  Anyway you look at it, this is not an expression of unconditional love that "love preachers" often claim by taking John 3:16 out of context.

Regarding your marriage analogy, that is rather unscriptural.  When we are Born Again, we are converted.  We are not same persons that we were before we were Saved.  So to use your analogy, it would be more like, "if you really wished to change, and become an entirely different person, full of Grace and goodness and charity, then I would love you."  Of course, the Salvation equation is not that simple, and neither are the issues of Jesus' love for His Elect and the despise He has for the reprobate children of the devil. (John 8:44-45)

​The very fact that God exists outside of linear time, to which we are subject, negates your entire argument. You base your theory upon time, past and present-yet God exists outside of that timeline, He is not subject to it. However, the language is given in a way that will apply to our linear sensibilities. Consider:

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." (Rom 8:29, 30)

What we see here, is that God, from the beginning, foreknew those who would be His, and thus, predestined us to be conformed to His Son. Notice, not predestined to be saved, but to conformed to Jesus Christ. This all happened at the beginning, He knew each of us, knew what we would do, the decisions we would make. Thus, he then predestined us to be as Christ, and He called us and He justified us, or, if you will, declared us righteous, and then TAKE NOTE OF THIS, PLEASE, 'them he also glorified'. Notice, that is in the PAST tense. Now, most of us here would agree that we are not yet glorified, BUT, Paul here says that God has already glorified us. Already done. How is that? Well, because according to God, who is, was and shall be, all at the same time, the great I AM, we are already glorified. We are already seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, according to Eph 2:6.

So to make your argument based on past/present/future concerning what God has or shall do, is a straw argument, because according to scripture we are already glorified and seated with Christ.  The God so LOVED the word, doesn't change the fact that He still LOVES the word, and will love the world. He loved it from the time He created it and will love it always, and the offering of His Son Jesus Christ, whose sacrifice covers all those who believe in all times, is not just past, but always. All my sins, past present and future, (to me) have already been forgiven in Christ, and in the mind of God, have been always. He knew me as His child before I was a gleam in my daddy's eye, before anyone was a gleam in anyone's eye.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

​The very fact that God exists outside of linear time, to which we are subject, negates your entire argument. You base your theory upon time, past and present-yet God exists outside of that timeline, He is not subject to it. However, the language is given in a way that will apply to our linear sensibilities. Consider:

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." (Rom 8:29, 30)

What we see here, is that God, from the beginning, foreknew those who would be His, and thus, predestined us to be conformed to His Son. Notice, not predestined to be saved, but to conformed to Jesus Christ. This all happened at the beginning, He knew each of us, knew what we would do, the decisions we would make. Thus, he then predestined us to be as Christ, and He called us and He justified us, or, if you will, declared us righteous, and then TAKE NOTE OF THIS, PLEASE, 'them he also glorified'. Notice, that is in the PAST tense. Now, most of us here would agree that we are not yet glorified, BUT, Paul here says that God has already glorified us. Already done. How is that? Well, because according to God, who is, was and shall be, all at the same time, the great I AM, we are already glorified. We are already seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, according to Eph 2:6.

So to make your argument based on past/present/future concerning what God has or shall do, is a straw argument, because according to scripture we are already glorified and seated with Christ.  The God so LOVED the word, doesn't change the fact that He still LOVES the word, and will love the world. He loved it from the time He created it and will love it always, and the offering of His Son Jesus Christ, whose sacrifice covers all those who believe in all times, is not just past, but always. All my sins, past present and future, (to me) have already been forgiven in Christ, and in the mind of God, have been always. He knew me as His child before I was a gleam in my daddy's eye, before anyone was a gleam in anyone's eye.    

​The argument is not based on whether God is temporal or not, but on the plain reading of the Christian Bible.  Jesus wrote the Bible for us, not for Himself.  The timeframe references are for the readers, to tell us the way things were, the way they are, and the way they will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Ukelelemike,

Thank you very much for your excellent biblical definition of predestination according to Romans 8:29 & 30 and Ephesians 2:6. And, that all of the blessings, or fruits, of salvation is due to the foreknowledge of God as brought out in Romans 8:29. I also appreciate your bold stand that are are predestinated, "... to be conformed to the image of his son," and not salvation as the Calvinist decrees.  

Our Calvinist friends forget (either through ignorance, or, deliberate forethought), or just ignore, the foreknowledge of God and the reason for predestination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

​That's not an example of plain and careful reading. That's an example of eisegetical reading (i.e. reading your assumptions into it) while ignoring the rest of Scripture. You're quibbling over past and present tense when it makes no contextual sense to do so. As mentioned above, if we take your method of reading with Romans 5:8, then God still hates you and you're going to hell. You see, it says that Christ died, which is past tense. It also says that He died while we were sinners so unless you were born and living in Rome in the first century then Paul wasn't talking to you. You weren't born yet so you couldn't have sinned yet. That's all past tense, so I'm sorry to tell you, you're not one of the elect.

Furthermore, Romans 10:13 and Acts 2:21 make clear that anyone can call on Jesus and they will be saved with certainty. Unfortunately for your point of view, 1 John 2:2 says that Jesus was the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. That's an all-inclusive term, so you either have to admit that limited atonement is false, or you have to say that since it was past tense He isn't the propitiation for sins now, just back then, which means once again...you're not one of the elect because that was past tense and you're in the present almost 2000 years later.

Your reading is not plain and careful. It's sloppy and based on your own preconceived notions.

​The argument is not based on whether God is temporal or not, but on the plain reading of the Christian Bible.  Jesus wrote the Bible for us, not for Himself.  The timeframe references are for the readers, to tell us the way things were, the way they are, and the way they will be.

​Perhaps in all of the conversations you missed the post above, so I've quoted it here to give you a chance to respond if you so choose since you clearly still think what you're doing is a "plain reading."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

​The argument is not based on whether God is temporal or not, but on the plain reading of the Christian Bible.  Jesus wrote the Bible for us, not for Himself.  The timeframe references are for the readers, to tell us the way things were, the way they are, and the way they will be.

​And yet, it is written clearly in a manner that seems to defy a linear mindset in some cases for a reason: to remind us of God's view on things. We see from a past/present/future, yet God tells us that we are already seated in heavenly places, and we are already glorified. Thus, when we consider such things as "For God so LOVED the world..." since God is outside of time, it is impossible for Him to limit His love for the world in a specific time period, unless He was to lay it out clearly for us. We have no qualification to say, "Well, God loved from this time to this time, but He no longer loves the world" That's ridiculous, else we should also declare that Jesus' sacrifice which is past, was only given for those of the past, not for us. When did His grace end? We would say, it hasn't ended, not until the end. So then, who can we declare God's love ended? God's love is part and parcel with Jesus' salvation and grace-they are inextricably entwined.

Rom 5:8 says "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." See, God COMMENDETH. That is an active term. God is still commending His love toward us, toward all, and the proof is that Christ died for us. Now, before you say, 'Yes, died for the elect', John 3:16 reminds us that according to God's love Jesus was sent for 'whosoever believeth'. Indeed, these ARE the elect, but also for everyone-the elect are those who the Lord, by His foreknowledge, knew would receive, and thus, elected them to be conformed to His Son. So, that commendation is for ALL. Jesus died for the sin of the WORLD, hence, all, for ALL the lost, including those who would ultimately not choose salvation. "And I, if I be lifted up, shall draw all men..."

So, God STILL loves all, and Jesus' grace is still offered to all who will hear, as well as to all who won't, hence they are without excuse.

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