Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

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

      INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

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

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

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

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

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The King James Version attacked from with in


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This has been coming up recently and it really has bothered me. Some IFB's are using word studies and unknowingly tearing apart the plain english of the KJV just to appeal to their desire to prove an issue. If it says it in plain english and you show me a complicated word study that says it really meant something else you are attacking the validity of the KJV, you are saying the translators got it wrong. Error enters in subtly. We need to be sure to check our hearts with these word studies, is it done to prove MY desires correct, or is it done to affirm GODS desires for me? Word studies that conflict are likely red flags... God is NOT the author of confusion. Word studies should only increase understanding of the context and the meaning of the passage as a whole. The KJV has never been under the attack it is now, and this attack is coming from with in the saints serving Him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This article shows the attack well: Most conservatives would be appaled by the article and flag it immediately, but when the same devises are used to make acceptable something they want acceptable they stay silent.http://religiondispatches.org/does-the-bible-really-call.../

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This article shows the attack well: Most conservatives would be appaled by the article and flag it immediately, but when the same devises are used to make acceptable something they want acceptable they stay silent.http://religiondispatches.org/does-the-bible-really-call.../

 

So are you saying you agree with the article or not?

I am not KJVO but I am not in agreement with 'perversions' either, and the Bible I use is older than the KJB but uses different words and wordings.

They, the KJB and my Bible, are based on the same TR Greek and the same Hebrew/Chaldee/Aramaic.

Or are you stating that some men use the same tactics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Completely disagree with the article, find it appalling, it makes me angry and sad.  It's the same use of the tactics to attack the KJV.  If we don't stand on the inspired Word of God how can we stand on anything?  What kind of a church do you attend?  Is it Independent Fundamental?  If so you would know the doctrinal issues surrounding the KJV.  It is the preserved Word of God in the English language. I would be surprised to find differences on that issue with in an IFB church.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Most IFB churches use the KJB. However, there are at least a few which also use some others along with the KJB and a few which have completely changed over to a MV.

IFB churches declaring themselves KJO is a relatively modern concept. Of course, prior to the second half of the 20th century there wasn't a myriad of versions out there with new ones and updated ones being published virtually every year.

Even that staunch IFB man of God, John R. Rice, wasn't KJO. He sometimes quoted from the RSV even tho he primarily used the KJB. Sumner and others were/are not KJO. Rice's paper, Sword of the Lord, didn't promote a KJO position until after Rice passed away. It's really been the Sword's current editor, Smith, who has used the Sword as an instrument to promote and defend the KJO position.

When a person breaks down IFBs to individuals, while most use and carry a KJB, there are many individuals within IFB churches who read, study and otherwise use other versions at home, alongside their KJB.

A lot has changed over the past several decades, both within and outside IFB churches.

For the newer folks here I will add that I use the KJB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Once in a while I look at meanings of the Greek and get a little confused as to the reason a particular word was used, but I don't argue the validity of the word, it just drives me to look a little deeper as to why it might have been used.

For instance. we were just going through Rev 16 last Sunday, and it speaks of the noisome, grievous sore that would be the result of the first vial of wrath. I looked at the Strongs and I find that a majority of the times its used, it is translated 'evil', or 'troublesome'. This is the only use of 'noisome'. So it got me wondering why, how a wound could be noisome.

Now, I am kind of, of the opinion that the implantable microchip could either be the mark, or a precursor to the mark. After all, if you won't be able to buy or sell, what better way to control that than to have everyone have a chip implanted in their hand or forehead with all their bank info, and accept nothing else? Well, the current microchip is powered by a lithium battery encased in glass-if it was to burst, it would cause a terrible wound, infected with lithium, radioactive, and glass. And it would probably make a 'POP!" when it did. So it IS possible to have a noisome, grievous wound with such a thing.  Doesn't have to be that, but it shows how it is quite possible and probable, at least in this scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

While the KJB is in English, word meanings change.  

 

For instance, the phrase "gay apparel"  does not mean today what it did forty years ago... much less four hundred years ago.  Ask a person younger than twenty today what gay apparel is, and you are sure to get the answer that it is what a sodomite wears.  And if no one looks up the original Greek, the youth of tomorrow will be preaching a message totally foreign to its original intent amd meaning WHEN PREACHING ON GAY APPARREL.

 

knowing Greek and Hebrew is not wrong, but helpful when reading the KJB.  There were many different words in Greek or Hebrew that, although translated as the same word, meant a certain class or a certain genre.  It is good to know when the Bible says 'man', whether it is speaking of a certain classification, i.e.; warrior, (geber) husband, (ish) or mankind in general? (adam)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I would simply add "properly used", learning and studying Greek and Hebrew can be helpful and good. Used to enhance our understanding of the KJB this is beneficial.

However, and I think this is mostly what the OP is referring to, there are many who use the Greek and Hebrew to attack the validity and authority of the KJB. They will declare this word and that word and more words should have been translated differently. In doing so they are declaring the KJB to be in error while placing their opinion upon how these words should have been translated above the entire team of KJB translators of highly skilled men who spent years rightly translating the KJB and double checking each others work to ensure consensus and accuracy. Those who do this are men with an agenda to discredit the KJB.

There are also those who learn just enough Greek and Hebrew to think themselves more educated and wise than others and in their clumsy attempts to prove their wisdom and intellect, end up trying to correct the KJB even if that's not their actual intent.

Looking at the Greek and Hebrew to understand why the KJB translators chose a particular English word in the KJB can enhance our understanding and is supportive of the KJB.

Looking at the Greek and Hebrew to try and change or denounce the KJB is an evil act against the Word of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yes that is the intent of word study, but they are used to say abomination is not what the greek word was originally meant to mean.... that is using word studies to twist scripture. If it is in plain english and a word study show a completely different meaning it is likely that the word study has gone wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Completely disagree with the article, find it appalling, it makes me angry and sad.  It's the same use of the tactics to attack the KJV.  If we don't stand on the inspired Word of God how can we stand on anything?  What kind of a church do you attend?  Is it Independent Fundamental?  If so you would know the doctrinal issues surrounding the KJV.  It is the preserved Word of God in the English language. I would be surprised to find differences on that issue with in an IFB church.  

I went to an IFB KJVO church for 21 years. I have been a minister since 1990. Until this past year I was the Pastor of a ministry called Jacob's Well, a Genevan Baptist Ministry. I currently do attend an IFB. I only minister as the Lord allows now, but have been used of God many times since using my non-KJV Bible. It does not attack the KJB, but reinforces the truth of what we have and do believe as Baptists. I have preached many times on the KJB issue, in support of it being the only one in English. Until the day I found this one. I now have preached and taught from the Bible I use now for 12 years. God is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yes that is the intent of word study, but they are used to say abomination is not what the greek word was originally meant to mean.... that is using word studies to twist scripture. If it is in plain english and a word study show a completely different meaning it is likely that the word study has gone wrong. 

Yes, if a word study is done and they claim their understanding is that something in the KJB is wrong, then they have made a mistake in some way, have decided they know more than the KJB translators and all those who have accepted the KJB as is for over 400 years, or they are actually intent upon declaring something wrong as a means of attacking the KJB. Those doing such should be avoided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I believe my King James Bible is error free. It doesn't need any kind of correction. As soon as you say your Bible isn't perfect you put yourself in authority over God's words. Men love to be in control so believing in a perfect Bible isn't popular, even in IFB circles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I went to an IFB KJVO church for 21 years. I have been a minister since 1990. Until this past year I was the Pastor of a ministry called Jacob's Well, a Genevan Baptist Ministry. I currently do attend an IFB. I only minister as the Lord allows now, but have been used of God many times since using my non-KJV Bible. It does not attack the KJB, but reinforces the truth of what we have and do believe as Baptists. I have preached many times on the KJB issue, in support of it being the only one in English. Until the day I found this one. I now have preached and taught from the Bible I use now for 12 years. God is good.

The KJB, in part, comes from studying and comparing the Geneva Bible (and other pre-KJ Bibles), along with comparing the same line of ancient texts as the Geneva Bible was translated from.

Even when the KJB was being prepared, the Geneva Bible was considered a good translation. The only negatives I've read regarding the Geneva Bible from back then had to do with the notes contained within. Many non-Calvinists objected to some of the notes and some in authority objected to some of the notes as well. However, it's likely if the Geneva Bible had not contained notes many in England found objectionable, that Bible may not have eventually been replaced by the KJB.

The KJB and Geneva Bible are very similar and compatible, unlike the often vastly different MVs which often leave out entire verses or passages, change the meaning of verses by changing words around, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 However, it's likely if the Geneva Bible had not contained notes many in England found objectionable, that Bible may not have eventually been replaced by the KJB.

I agree. Although it did take about 60 years to overtake it in popularity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I went to an IFB KJVO church for 21 years. I have been a minister since 1990. Until this past year I was the Pastor of a ministry called Jacob's Well, a Genevan Baptist Ministry. I currently do attend an IFB. I only minister as the Lord allows now, but have been used of God many times since using my non-KJV Bible. It does not attack the KJB, but reinforces the truth of what we have and do believe as Baptists. I have preached many times on the KJB issue, in support of it being the only one in English. Until the day I found this one. I now have preached and taught from the Bible I use now for 12 years. God is good.

I've mentioned before my disagreements with a fellow who is a big believer in the Gap Theory, (not someone here on the board), and its interesting in this discussion, because he was a HUGE KJV only person generally, EXCEPT for a few places where the translation disagreed with his theory, and they had to change the English word so it would agree, somewhat easier, with their theory, and in these places, he emphatically declared the translators were WRONG! All based on the teachings of ONE man, by the name of Younce, (Max, I think).

One of the things I did was to go to earlier translations, like the Geneva and Luther and others, the TR translations, and showed him how they all backed the KJV in these particular areas, and of course, well they were just ALL wrong, and his teacher was better studied and more knowledgeable than all these people. It's funny, too, because when you read about some of these translators who before they were adults, often spoke, read and wrote multiple languages, including Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often the ancient version of them, as well. These people were steeped in the old languages and had the manuscripts available for long-term study and use in the translations, while today these erstwhile scholars have nothing but an older Greek or Hebrew printed version, with no ability to actually search out what the old manuscripts said. Essentially they are having to trust that someone else wrote correctly what they are reading, which is no difference than when we read the KJV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

We can't refuse the original language because some evil people misuse the text. People misuse the King James Version but we can't stop using it. We live in an evil generation, we need to weep and sigh like Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

that article is humorous at best. Even if you decided to go to Strongs for Lev 18:22, the definition of Abomination there:

"H8441

תֹּעֵבַה    תּוֹעֵבַה
tô‛êbah    tô‛êbah
to-ay-baw', to-ay-baw'
Feminine active participle of H8581; properly something disgusting (morally), that is, (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol: - abominable (custom, thing), abomination.
Total KJV occurrences: 117"

sooo either way, the article falls flat.

as for the KJB "controversy", I dont think you need the greek, I believe the KJB is preserved. Some people like to use the greek who are KJVO; I dont find it necessary for my own studies, lesson planning, teaching etc.

"What about Greek nuggets?"
http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/nuggets.html

I find just using a good ol 1828 dictionary helpful, as my english fails in comparison to the KJB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think Greek is helpful.

 

for instance, the KJV employs the word, "Teraphim" six times in the Old Testament.  

 

What is/are Teraphim?  I never heard the word in school growomh up.  I know seraphim was an angellike creature.  But teraphim?  No clue.

 

teraphim is always used with "and graven images" or "and the image", et.al..  So it is used in conjunction with and alongside, idols would be my guess.  But, without going to any dictionary, who knows exactly what they are?  And if you do know, how do you know?  What is the difference in someone else telling you "a teraphim is..." and you going to a dictionary to look it up?  And if one is going to look up the meaning of a word, it makes more sense to use a dictionary of the era in which the word was written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have a KJB dictionary put out by Cloud. It's been years since I've really used it, but it was helpful at one time.

Myself, I don't get much out of consulting the Greek or Hebrew. I tend to get more out of comparing Scripture with Scripture and spending time in prayer if I'm trying to figure something out. Or, I can just ask here and usually receive plenty of help!

At the same time, I know some folks who do find delving into the Greek or Hebrew to be helpful.

Whatever approach suits a person best. I know my method of study for tests back in university was very different from almost everyone else, and among the "everyone else" they had a variety of methods, but what I did worked for me while trying some of their methods I found unhelpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I've found Greek and Hebrew to be very helpful in illuminating the KJV word usage. English just isn't always great at expressing things coming from highly inflected languages like Greek and Hebrew (e.g. mood, case, tense, etc.) and so sometimes I just find it helpful to see what the underlying reasons for word usage or word order that may seem a little awkward at first in English. As a very simple and benign example...

Greek has no set word order and sentences are formed by inflecting words to show how they relate. More often than not, word order is used to show emphasis to make a point. In English, John 1:1 reads:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Pretty clear in English, no real need for a word study here. The Greek word order reads:

In beginning was the word and the word was with the God and God was the Word.

The only thing that's really different is the last phrase (the Word was God vs. God was the Word). The truth conveyed is the same but the Greek word order makes it the deity of Christ and His oneness with God so much more emphatic. It doesn't change anything. It's not earthshattering. It's just illuminating.

Another reason I like looking into original languages is the way words tend to have multiple meanings and what a possible meaning in an English word may be completely out of bounds for the Greek/Hebrew word it was translated from and vice versa. Another simple and benign example...

People like to argue over where exactly the nail was driven during crucifixion (hand vs. wrist vs. forearm). Some people read "hand" and dogmatically say it can only mean through the palm. Others go with the anatomical argument say it had to have been in the wrist or forearm because it would have ripped out of His hand. Well, the Greek word used for "hand" (see Luke 24:39 for an example) covers everything from the elbow to the fingertip, so it really doesn't matter where the nail was placed.

No truth was changed. No doctrine was challenged. All we did was clarify the intended meaning.

Another, more pertinent example. The English usage of "baptize" has taken on a variety of meanings that validates sprinkling and pouring and confines it to religious ritual. However, the Greek word can only be taken to mean full immersion, thus clarifying an important doctrinal position without having to examine and argue from every example of baptism found in the Bible to see exactly how they did it.

These examples are really simple and have no great impact and this type of word study makes up probably 80%-90% of valid word studies in the original languages. However, the rest can make big differences in the interpretation of things such as election/predestination that have enormous doctrinal impact. In every case, though, all it should do is make the intended meaning clear when the English rendering appears to leave more than one possibility on the table and people choose the one that suits them rather than the one that was intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 1 Anonymous, 9 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...